This is a solid victory for IT employees, and obvious sign that IT workers need to unionize.
Update 11/3/15
A reader graciously submitted the full text of the arbitration agreement, which was too large to publish in the comment fields:
"If Epic is forced to operate in a more public manner, they might have to start treating their employees and their customers with a little more trust and respect."
Yes, exactly. For
starters, in April Epic filed a copy of its pre-dispute employment arbitration
"agreement" with the Federal court in the J. Lewis v. Epic
technical-writers lawsuit. That is, for
the first time as a result of this filing, to my knowledge, the full text of
the agreement is in the public domain.
People should read it and see what rights of access to the courts Epic's
employees have been told they must abandon in order to work at Epic. I've copied (or tried to copy) the full agreement
below for everyone's edification.
This agreement is truly egregious IMHO. Judy Faulkner, who styles herself as
promoting progressive political principles, ought to be embarrassed to shackle
her employees with these limitations to the rights to remedies through the
courts that Americans take for granted as a birthright.
For hypocrisy and corporate expediency, she should be
expelled from the progressive, enlightened political circles in which she has
traveled so effortlessly.
For instance, Faulkner can't possibly reconcile her action
in imposing this agreement on the Epic labor force with Senator Tammy Baldwin's
co-sponsorship of S. 1133 (see also H.R 2087) the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1133/text ). This bill would make pre-dispute forced
employment arbitration agreements illegal.
Senator Baldwin presumably agrees with her bill's finding that "A
series of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States have interpreted
the [Federal Arbitration] Act so that it now extends to consumer disputes and
employment disputes, contrary to the intent of Congress." It is these misinterpretations that permit
Faulkner to force her employees to "agree" to forced arbitration as a
condition of employment.
Here is the agreement -- I hope its details are widely
discussed throughout Epic and the broader Madison community:
MUTUAL ARBITRATION AGREEMENT REGARDING WAGES AND HOURS
April 2, 2014
Agreement to Arbitrate. Epic Systems Corporation
("Epic") and I agree to use binding arbitration, instead of going to
court, for any "covered claims" that arise or have arisen between me
and Epic, its related and affiliated companies, and/or any current or former
employee of Epic or a related or affiliated company. I understand that if I
continue to work at Epic, I will be deemed to have accepted this Agreement.
"Covered claims" are any statutory or common law
legal claims, asserted or unasserted, alleging the underpayment or overpayment
of wages, expenses, loans, reimbursements, bonuses, commissions, advances, or
any element of compensation, based on claims of eligibility for overtime,
on-the-clock, off¬the-clock or other uncompensated hours worked claims, timing
or amount of pay at separation, improper deductions of pay or paid-time-off,
fee disputes, travel time claims, meal or rest period claims, overpayment
claims, claims of failure to reimburse or repay loans or advances, claims over
improper or inaccurate pay statements, or any other claimed violation of
wage-and-hour practices or procedures under local, state or federal statutory
or common law.
I understand and agree that arbitration is the only
litigation forum for resolving covered claims, and that both Epic and I are
waiving the right to a trial before a judge or jury in federal or state court
in favor of arbitration.
The Arbitrator shall have the authority to award the same
damages and other relief that would have been available in court pursuant to
applicable law. The arbitrator shall follow the rules of law of the state which
is the employee's principal place of work, any applicable Federal law, and the
rules as stated in this Agreement. The arbitrator shall have the authority to
grant any remedy or relief that the arbitrator deems just and equitable and
which is authorized by and consistent with applicable law, including applicable
statutory or other limitations on damages.
Waiver of Class and Collective Claims. I also agree that
covered claims will be arbitrated only on an individual basis, and that both
Epic and I waive the right to participate in or receive money or any other
relief from any class, collective, or representative proceeding. No party may
bring a claim on behalf of other individuals, and any arbitrator hearing my
claim may not: (i) combine more than one individual's claim or claims into a
single case; (ii) participate in or facilitate notification of others of
potential claims; or (iii) arbitrate any form of a class, collective, or
representative proceeding.
At Will Employment Unchanged by this Agreement. Nothing in
this agreement changes or in any manner modifies my relationship with Epic of
employment-at-will.
Claims not Covered by this Agreement. Covered claims under
this agreement do not include claims alleging discrimination, harassment, or
retaliation. Also excluded from this agreement are any claims that cannot be
required to be arbitrated as a matter of law. I also understand that I am not
barred from filing a claim or charge with a governmental administrative agency,
such as the National Labor Relations Board or Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, or from filing a workers' compensation or unemployment compensation
claim with respect to covered claims, though I am giving up the opportunity to
recover monetary amounts from any such governmental agency related claim (e.g.,
NLRB or EEOC) and would instead be able to pursue a claim for monetary amounts
through arbitration. I also understand that if a third party seeks to have Epic
garnish my wages, I may be subject to third-party garnishment proceedings in
court, even though such a dispute concerns my wages.
Right to Representation. Both Epic and I shall have the
right to be represented by an attorney in arbitration. Neither side is entitled
to its attorneys' fees except as provided for by applicable law.
How to File for Arbitration. To file a demand for
arbitration:
1. The party
desiring to pursue a legal dispute must prepare a written demand setting forth
the claim(s). Epic will pay its own filing fees. If I initiate the arbitration,
I will pay the lesser of the American Arbitration Association's then-current
filing fee (as of this date, $200), or the then-current filing fee applicable
in state court.
2. The
employment dispute resolution rules of the American Arbitration Association
("AAA") effective at the time of my filing will apply. The current
version of the rules can be found on pages 15-31 here:
https://www.adr.org/aaa/ShowProperty?nodeld=/UCM/ADRSTG_004362&revision=latestreleased.
These rules are modified by the terms of this Agreement, including the
following:
a. Epic will pay the arbitrator's fees and
the arbitration filing and administrative fees, less my initial payment for the
applicable filing fee;
b. Epic and I will each have the opportunity
to "rank" our preference for the appointed arbitrator from a list of
nine proposed arbitrators and the AAA will then appoint the arbitrator;
c. The arbitrator shall have the authority
to issue an award or partial award without conducting a hearing on the grounds
that there is no claim on which relief can be granted or that there is no
genuine issue of material fact to resolve at a hearing, consistent with Rules
12 and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP");
d. Each party shall be entitled to only one
interrogatory limited to the identification of potential witnesses, in a form
consistent with Rule 33 of the FRCP;
e. Each party shall be entitled to only 25
requests for production of documents, in a form consistent with Rule 34 of the
FRCP;
f. Each party shall be entitled a maximum
of two (2) eight-hour days of depositions of witnesses in a form consistent
with Rule 30 of the FRCP;
g. The arbitrator shall decide all disputes
related to discovery and to the agreed limits on discovery and may allow
additional discovery upon a showing of substantial need by either party or upon
a showing of an inability to pursue or defend certain claims without such
additional discovery;
h. The arbitrator must issue a decision in
writing, setting forth in summary form the reasons for the arbitrator's
determination and the legal basis therefor; and
i. The arbitrator's authority shall be
limited to deciding the case submitted by the parties to the arbitration.
Therefore, no decision by any arbitrator shall serve as precedent in other
arbitrations except in a dispute between the same parties, in which case it
could be used to preclude the same claim from being re-arbitrated.
Settlement. I may settle any dispute with the company at any
time without involvement of the arbitrator.
Modifications and Amendments. I understand and agree that
Epic may change or terminate this agreement after giving me 90 days written or
electronic notice. Any change or termination will not apply to a pending claim.
Savings Clause & Conformity Clause. If any provision of
this agreement is determined to be unenforceable or in conflict with a
mandatory provision of applicable law, it shall be construed to incorporate any
mandatory provision, and/or the unenforceable or conflicting provision shall be
automatically severed and the remainder of the agreement shall not be affected.
Provided, however, that if the Waiver of Class and Collective Claims is found
to be unenforceable, then any claim brought on a class, collective, or
representative action basis must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction,
and such court shall be the exclusive forum for such claims.
Controlling Law. I agree that this agreement is made
pursuant to and shall be governed under the Federal Arbitration Act.
This is obviously a good thing (arbitration clauses get my goat), but I don't see how this is a "solid victory for IT employees" - the only reason this lawsuit has merit in the first place is that tech writers _aren't_ IT employees. If they were, they would be overtime-exempt under the FLSA computer professional exemption.
ReplyDeleteIn case you didn't see this article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/epic-systems-judith-faulkner-hitech-ehr-interoperability
ReplyDeleteDoesn't seem like anything new being thrown at Epic, but..
Thanks for posting the agreement. There's a typo in the Senate bill number -- should be S. 1133, not S. 1113. The House counterpart is H.R. 2087. Concerned Epic staff (and others) ought to write to their representatives, and maybe ask their relatives in other districts to do so as well.
ReplyDeleteFor more information on how pernicious mandatory arbitration can be, the New York Times just published an excellent, well-researched three part series on the topic. The first article is here (with links to the subsequent two): http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html .
There's also an excellent video lecture online examining the history of how arbitration got off-track in America -- how it originated to address a real problem among merchants and morphed into an avoid-liability artifice used by employers, for example, in an effort to cancel worker rights that appear to be guaranteed under the National Labor Relations Act. The video lecture (under half an hour) is here: https://youtu.be/YcwgEM4k84U . Take a moment and learn how your rights are being brazenly ravaged. Good luck to all!
I updated the typo text.
DeleteClickable links:
New York Times article, part 1 of 3
YouTube video
An update on the current state of play in the Jacob Lewis (and putative class members) case against Epic (the Technical Writers case). As reported in this post, Federal Judge Crabb rejected Epic's motion to dismiss because she found that the provision of the Epic arbitration agreement on which Epic relied that precluded class-actions was in this situation. Her decision rested on her finding that a class action lawsuit was a form of "concerted activity" directly protected and guaranteed to workers under the National Labor Relations Act.
ReplyDeleteBut the way to view where things stand is that the dust has by no means settled on the resolution to this issue in this case. Congratulations to Lewis's counsel for persuading Judge Crabb -- but here's why the issue remains, practically, entirely unsettled: Epic immediately appealed Judge Crabb's decision to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it is pending now. According to the COA's scheduling order, Epic's brief is due Nov. 9th, and Lewis's brief on Dec. 9th, with any reply brief due Dec. 23rd (Merry Christmas to all the attorneys!).
Why the outcome of this appeal is an entirely open question: In a case involving Murphy Oil USA Inc. and a prior decision involving D.R. Horton, another Circuit Court of Appeals, the 5th Circuit, rejected and invalidated (in the 5th Circuit's territory) the National Labor Relations Board's decision in In Re D.R. Horton on which Judge Crabb relied (though the NLRB continues to apply its decision nationally, in circuit territories where it has not been invalidated). The 5th Circuit, in its reasoning rejecting In Re D.R. Horton, relied on (arguably extending) the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion in which the Court on a 5-4 vote upheld a consumer arbitration agreement that prohibited class-action suits that appeared to be protected by state law.
I have no way of knowing how the 7th Circuit will regard this issue, but any fair assessment is that it remains entirely unsettled and open. Watch this channel for further developments!
Minor typo correction to the post I just submitted: The second sentence reads, "As reported in this post, Federal Judge Crabb rejected Epic's motion to dismiss because she found that the provision of the Epic arbitration agreement on which Epic relied that precluded class-actions was in this situation." Please add the word "unenforceable" to the end of this sentence. Sorry for the oversight.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone needs help with legal issues re Epic firing and black lists, contact http://www.hq-law.com/ for their Epic attorneys. They are trying to assemble complainants for a larger lawsuit. Habush Habush & Rottier was not very helpful to me and seemed like amateurs.
ReplyDeleteAnother NY Times article today on the wonders of forced arbitration, this time for borrowers, and how it insulates debt buyers from accountability for sometimes plainly abusive collection practices: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/business/dealbook/sued-over-old-debt-and-blocked-from-suing-back.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 .
ReplyDeleteclickable link: Sued over old debt and blocked from suing back
DeleteThank you for sharing your post. This agreements works in every way to avoid any disputes. Very technical to understand word by word for regular people but this protects them about their rights. It's only needs time and effort to understand your rights and responsibilities as both parties are involved on the agreements.
ReplyDelete