24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Alton J. Sanders

Case Updates

The NLRB determined that the defendant company's arbitration policy was a type of employment agreement that is unlawful and unenforceable under the NLRA. The NLRB determined that agreement was unenforceable because it restricted concerted employee activity.

In support of 24 Hour Fitness' filing of exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, NCLC filed an amicus brief urging the ALJ to hold to hold that the defendant's arbitration policy, which requires bilateral rather than classwide arbitration, does not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This case arises out of a legal challenge to 24 Hour Fitness’s arbitration policy. According to NCLC's amicus brief, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), all arbitration agreements must be enforced “according to their terms” absent a “contrary congressional command,” and the NLRA does not include such a command. NCLC warned that if 24 Hour Fitness' arbitration policy is found to violate the NLRA, it will make it harder for all employers to enter into arbitration agreements and would have the practical effect of eliminating employment arbitration as a fast, fair, and efficient alternative to costly litigation. Previously, NCLC filed an amicus brief supporting 24 Hour Fitness before the NLRB ALJ.

NCLC also filed a letter with the Board arguing that this case should be resolved in favor of 24 Hour Fitness because the D.C. Circuit's recent decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB renders the underlying decision in this case invalid because the Board lacked a quorum when issuing the DR Horton decision.