National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 13 Jan 2017

Whether arbitration agreements with individual employees that bar them from pursuing work-related claims on a collective or class basis in any forum are prohibited as an unfair labor practice under 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), because they limit the employees' right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in "concerted activities" in pursuit of their "mutual aid or protection," 29 U.S.C. 157, and are therefore unenforceable under the saving clause of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 2.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The Supreme Court case addressed whether employers can enforce arbitration agreements that bar employees from pursuing work-related claims on a collective or class action basis. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) argued that such agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employees' rights to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection. However, Murphy Oil USA contended that the Federal Arbitration Act supports enforcing these arbitration agreements as written. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Murphy Oil USA, holding that employers can require individual arbitration proceedings instead of allowing collective actions by workers.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. She argued that prohibiting class or collective legal actions undermines employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act to act collectively for their mutual benefit and protection. Justice Ginsburg emphasized how this decision could lead to significant power imbalances between employers and employees since it restricts workers’ ability to pool resources when challenging workplace violations through litigation or negotiation processes.