Fatemeh Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc.
755 F.3d 1072
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Fatemeh Johnmohammadi, a former Bloomingdale’s sales associate, sued on behalf of a putative class of California employees for unpaid overtime under state law.
- Bloomingdale’s removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- Shortly after hire, Johnmohammadi received a dispute-resolution package with an arbitration agreement that included a 30-day opt-out; she did not opt out and does not contest voluntariness.
- The arbitration agreement barred classwide arbitration and waived the right to pursue collective or class claims in any forum.
- Johnmohammadi argued the class-action waiver is unenforceable under federal labor statutes (the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the NLRA), claiming filing a class action is a protected “concerted activity.”
- The district court compelled arbitration and dismissed the action; the Ninth Circuit affirmed enforcement of the arbitration agreement and the class-action waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prehire class-action waiver in an arbitration agreement is unenforceable under the NLRA/Norris-LaGuardia as a restraint on protected "concerted activities" | Johnmohammadi: filing/joining a class action is "other concerted activity" protected by the statutes, so waiver is unenforceable | Bloomingdale’s: waiver is a voluntary, noncoercive contractual choice; statutes do not bar such waivers in these circumstances | Held: Waiver enforceable; statutes do not render it invalid where employee freely elected arbitration and was not coerced |
| Whether Bloomingdale’s unlawfully coerced, interfered with, or restrained employees by offering arbitration (thereby limiting class litigation) | Johnmohammadi: offering arbitration was an inducement that curtailed freedom of choice and thus violated §8(a)(1) style principles | Bloomingdale’s: it offered a choice (arbitration with waiver vs. opting out to litigate collectively); no threats or conditioning of employment | Held: No coercion or unlawful interference; employer simply presented a choice and provided an opt-out; plaintiff failed to show improper purpose or unfair labor practice |
| Whether the FAA required enforcement of the arbitration agreement (and dismissal) | Johnmohammadi: federal labor policy should override or invalidate the class waiver | Bloomingdale’s: FAA requires enforcement of valid arbitration agreements, including class-waiver terms as upheld in Supreme Court precedent | Held: FAA enforcement required; arbitration agreement valid and must be enforced according to its terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Ahmed, 283 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.) (prehire arbitration opt-out principle)
- Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal vs. stay when compelling arbitration)
- Lloyd v. Hovensa, LLC, 369 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004) (FAA §3 stay interpretation)
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (appealability and FAA enforcement context)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (class-action waivers not invalid under California law)
- American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228 (2013) (enforcement of arbitration agreements that preclude class arbitration)
- J. I. Case Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332 (1944) (limits on individual contracts vis-à-vis collective bargaining)
- Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556 (1978) (discussion of protected "concerted activities")