arbitration agreements

By: Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq.

On November 8, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Bruce D. Rosenstein upheld a class action waiver in a mandatory employment arbitration agreement notwithstanding the NLRB’s controversial ruling in D.R. Horton banning such class action waivers because they purportedly chill employees’ rights to engage in concerted protected activity under Section 7

By: Howard M. Wexler, Esq.

As our loyal blog readers are most certainly aware, the National Labor Relations Board’s D.R. Horton decision has been heavily criticized by courts around the country. In fact, earlier this month the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP [discussed here] overturned a

By: Anne D. Harris, Esq.

In MasTec Services Co. Inc., Case. No. 16-CA-086102 (“MasTec”), an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) added an additional twist to the already controversial NLRB decision D.R. Horton Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012). In D.R. Horton, the Board decided that a mandatory arbitration agreement

By Joshua M. Henderson.

Not to put it too indelicately, but has the NLRB made a fetish of the Section 7 right to engage in “concerted activities . . . for mutual aid or protection” — in the sense of rendering it excessive attention, even reverence?  One can easily conclude from its recent decisions