Class And Collective Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements

26 See Abdul-Rasheed vs. KableLink Commc`ns, LLC, 2013 WL 6182321, *4 (M.D. Fla. 25 November 2013) (daily pressure from employees to sign agreements put in place after a class action has been initiated); SA-PG Sun City Ctr., LLC v. Kennedy, 79 d.3d 916, 920 (fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Evering v. Tampa Food &Hosp., Inc., 2016 WL 8943314, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2016) (collective cases). 49 Z.B. Convergys Corp.

v. NLRB, 866 F.3d 635, 639 (5th Cir. 2017) (5th Cir. 2017) (notes that Section 7 nRA does not confer an unviable substantive right and rejects the notion of “the FAA empowering arbitration agreements to waive rights that other agreements cannot waive”); LogistiCare Sols., Inc. v. Nat`l Labor Relations Bd., 866 F.3d 715, 717 (5e Cir. 2017) (after Convergys and finding that the autonomous abandonment of class actions is not contrary to the NLRA); U1it4Less, Inc., 2015 WL 3916247 at *9 (nothing in rico`s status system prevented the application of the stand-alone class action waiver); Kubischta v. Schlumberger Tech Corp, 2016 WL 3752917, at *7 (W.D. Pa.

July 14, 2016) (following Korea Week`s decision on the scruples of autonomous class action waivers and the addition that nothing in the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act or Ohio Wage Act prohibits the autonomous abandonment of class-wide proceedings); Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2016 WL 1213985, at **2-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2016), appeal dismissed Under name, Vieira v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2017 WL 8683718 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2017) (collection of numerous cases from many different jurisdictions which claim that there is no substantive and non-negligible right to collective actions under the FLSA and that the autonomous abandonment of collective actions was enforceable); See Palacios v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 2011 WL 6794438, at *4 (S.D. Fla.

Apr. 19, 2011) (in dicta, in diktat that class actions that are not essential to justify substantive law and the abandonment of class actions are not unscrupulous and do not contravene the NLRA). But see Meyer v. Kalanick, 185 F. Supp.3d 448, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (application of California law to the concept of stand-alone class action waiver and finding that California would consider this waiver unenforceable for reasons of public law). The administrative judge of the board of directors found that the employer had unlawfully promulgated and maintained an arbitration agreement obliging the workers, as a condition of employment, to waive their rights to pursue class or class actions, and that the employer had unlawfully threatened the workers with retaliation for refusing to sign the agreement. . . .

Comments are closed.