July 28, 2014

Arbitration Agreements Containing FLSA Class Waivers Held Enforceable

Arbitration agreements containing class waivers are enforceable in claims brought under the FLSA, the Eighth Circuit held this week in Owen v. Bristol Care. The district court previously had found that an agreement which prohibited employees from arbitrating FLSA cases on behalf of a class was unenforceable based largely on the NLRB’s recent decision in D.R. Horton.  In D.R. Horton, the NLRB held a class waiver unenforceable in a similar FLSA challenge based on the agency’s conclusion that the waiver conflicted with the employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in protected concerted activity.  The Eighth Circuit distinguished D.R. Horton and reversed.  First, the court noted that the NLRB limited its holding to arbitration agreements barring allprotected concerted action, whereas the agreement at issue did not bar an employee from filing a complaint with the Department of Labor.  Second, the appellate court observed that nothing in the agreement precluded any administrative agency, such as the DOL, from investigating and, if necessary, filing suit on behalf of a class of employees.  Third, the court noted that D.R. Horton conflicted with the Supreme Court decision in Concepcion and most federal appellate decisions on the issue.

Nevertheless, this issue is far from settled. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument next month in the case of American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, to address the issue of whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits courts to invalidate arbitration agreements on the ground that they do not permit class arbitration of a federal law claim. Although Italian Colors does not involve FLSA claims, it may have an impact on the reasoning in Owen v. Bristol Care.  The D.R. Horton case is also pending on appeal before the Fifth Circuit, with oral argument scheduled for February 5, 2013.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author


Jay P. Lechner is a board certified labor and employment lawyer, specializing in the defense of discrimination, whistleblower, harassment, and wage and hour cases, as well as restrictive covenants, retaliation, related state tort and contract issues, and other types of employment litigation.


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 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  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 we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or