Tag Archives: “AT&T Mobility”

Concepcion Breathes New Life into Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement: California Court of Appeal Affirms Order Compelling Arbitration of Claims on Individual Basis

Photo of Sabrina ShadiBy Sabrina Shadi on Posted in Arbitration
After the California Supreme Court decided Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, class action waivers in arbitration agreements were on life support, with their supporters holding fast to the hope that some modern miracle would come along to resuscitate them.  Then along came AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 113 S.Ct. 1740, and … Continue Reading

NLRB Holds Class Action Waivers Violate the National Labor Relations Act

Photo of John LewisBy John Lewis on Posted in Arbitration, FLSA
In the much anticipated ruling in D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda.pdf, released Friday, January 6, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) held that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) by “requiring employees to waive their right to collectively pursue employment-related claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial.” The … Continue Reading

Franken-Bill Would Have a Monstrous Impact on Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

Photo of John LewisBy John Lewis on Posted in Arbitration
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s April 27th decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.pdf, Senator Al Franken (D-Minn) and others re-introduced legislation (S.987, H.R. 1873.pdf) that would forbid pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements in employment, consumer or civil rights disputes.  The Concepcion opinion (reviewed in Greg Mersol’s April 27, 2011 post on this blog and in the … Continue Reading

Court Decertifies FLSA Class of AT&T Mobility Retail Workers

Photo of Greg MersolBy Greg Mersol on Posted in FLSA, Overtime Claims, Retail
As we have commented before in this blog, courts considering certification of collective actions under the FLSA often use the two-step procedure generally attributed to the court in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987).  Under that procedure, the court first determines whether to “conditionally” or “provisionally” certify the class.  This first step typically relies … Continue Reading
LexBlog