Advertisement

July 28, 2014

Advice Memo From NLRB Again Affirms D.R. Horton, Finds Employer Arbitration Agreement Unlawful

The NLRB continued to hold its position on arbitration agreements in an advice memorandum released last week, finding that an employer’s mandatory arbitration agreement violated the NLRA despite the fact that it explicitly excluded claims in front of the NLRB and was silent as to whether it prohibited arbitration on a class basis. The Division of Advice applied the Board’s holding in D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), and held that the fact that the employer interpreted the agreement to prohibit class claims was enough for the agreement to restrict employee’s Section 7 rights.

The D.R. Horton case has been widely criticized as contradicting U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding arbitration (see AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion) and is currently on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.

The NLRB’s advice memo is Concord Honda, Case No. 32-CA-072231, available on the Board’s website here.

See our previous coverage of D.R. Horton:

Board Finds Certain Arbitration Agreements Violate NLRA

California Court of Appeals Not Persuaded by D.R. Horton Inc. v. Michael Cuda

D.R. Horton Files Reply Brief in Appeal of NLRB Decision

In the Spirit of DR Horton, ALJ Extends Protections to Job Applicants

NLRB ALJ Finds Employee Arbitration Policy Unlawful

© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Christine Holst, Labor and Employment Attorney, Barnes Thornburg, Law firm
Associate

Christine Holst is an associate in the Grand Rapids office of Barnes & Thornburg and is a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Department. She focuses her practice on general labor and employment matters and defense of Title VII, ADEA, and other employment discrimination cases.

616-742-3927

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and