Franks v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 31 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-10788,No. 16-10644,16-10644,16-10788 |
| Parties | JORGIE FRANKS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., f.k.a. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Petitioner-Cross Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross Petitioner. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
Agency No. 12-CA-145083 Petitions for Review of a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board
Before MARTIN and HULL, Circuit Judges and RESTANI,* Judge.
In January 2015, after leaving her job at Samsung Electronics America ("Samsung"), Jorgie Franks filed an unfair labor charge with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"). In her charge, Franks alleged that Samsung violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. by (1) maintaining an employment agreement that required employment disputes to be resolved through individualized arbitration and that waived its employees' rights to pursue collective action lawsuits against Samsung; (2) interrogating Franks about her pursuit of a collective action lawsuit against Samsung; and (3) ordering Franks not to talk to her coworkers about the prospect of filing a collective action lawsuit against Samsung.
A three-member panel of the NLRB ruled that Samsung's employment agreement violated the NLRA and that Samsung had unlawfully interrogated Franks. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. f/k/a Samsung Telecomm. Am., LLC & Jorgie Franks, 363 N.L.R.B. No. 105 (Feb. 3, 2016). However, the NLRB panel found that Samsung did not issue a "do not talk" order to Franks. Id.
In 2016, Samsung filed a petition for review of the NLRB panel's order in this Court, challenging the NLRB panel's findings that Samsung's employment agreement violated the NLRA and that Sanchez unlawfully interrogated Franks.1 Franks also filed a petition for review, challenging the NLRB panel's rejection of her "do not talk" claim and asking this Court to affirm the remainder of the NLRB panel's order. The NLRB subsequently filed a cross-application for enforcement of the order, arguing that Samsung's employment agreement violated the NLRA and that the NLRB panel's finding that Samsung unlawfully interrogated Franks was supported by substantial evidence. The NLRB also asserted that the NLRB panel's finding that Sanchez did not instruct Franks not to talk to other employees was supported by substantial evidence.
After careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral argument, we (1) deny the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement, (2) deny Franks' petitionfor review, (3) grant Samsung's petition for review, (4) reverse the NLRB panel's ruling that Samsung's agreement violated the NLRA, (5) reverse the NLRB panel's ruling that Samsung unlawfully interrogated Franks, and (6) affirm the NLRB panel's ruling that Samsung did not issue an unlawful "do not talk" order to Franks.
In January 2013, Samsung hired Franks as a Field Sales Manager in the Tampa, Florida area. At the time Franks was hired, Samsung required its employees to sign a "Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims" ("Agreement"). In relevant part, the Agreement stipulated that work-related disputes between the signatory employee and Samsung would be resolved through individualized arbitration and that there would be no right to litigate employment-related disputes in class or collective action lawsuits:
The Agreement covered, among other things, "claims for wages or other compensation due."
In mid-2014, Franks became concerned that Samsung was not paying her overtime wages. In August 2014, Franks asked three coworkers about whether they shared her concerns, and if so, whether they would be interested in joining her in a lawsuit against Samsung.
A few weeks later, on September 3, 2014, Franks received a phone call from Sandra Sanchez, a Samsung Human Resources Business Partner. Initially, Sanchez asked Franks about how work was going and whether she liked working for Samsung. Franks responded with vague answers, as she was nervous to be speaking with such a high-ranking Samsung manager.
Sanchez then said "before you jump off the phone, let me talk to you about the real issue, why I called." Sanchez told Franks that other Samsung employees had complained that Franks had approached them about filing a lawsuit against Samsung. Sanchez explained to Franks that Franks' comments had made her coworkers feel uncomfortable. Sanchez also asked Franks "is there anything you would like to [tell] me about now?"
Franks responded "no," at which point, Sanchez explained "we really don't want you calling—or you know—reaching out to your coworkers to discuss thesetypes of things." Sanchez instructed Franks to come to her directly with any concerns.
In response, Franks asked Sanchez whether "it's not okay for me to . . . talk with my coworkers . . . and discuss things" about working at Samsung. Sanchez assured Franks that she could talk to her fellow employees as she wished. Sanchez conceded that she herself had vented to other coworkers before, acknowledging the "normal ups and downs" of working. But Sanchez explained to Franks that her comments were making her coworkers feel uncomfortable.
During the phone call, Franks never confirmed to Sanchez whether she was actually pursuing a lawsuit against Samsung. After the phone call ended, Franks called one of her coworkers and told her about what Sanchez had said.
A few weeks later, Samsung Human Resources received an anonymous complaint from one of Franks' coworkers, who claimed that Franks had approached him during a conference in mid-September (i.e., after Sanchez's phone conversation with Franks) and asked whether he was interested in filing a lawsuit against Samsung. The employee stated that Franks' comments had made him uncomfortable.
Sanchez followed up on this complaint by sending an email to Franks on October 7, 2014. Sanchez's email stated:
Franks responded by email the following day, October 8, 2014. Franks wrote that she was not comfortable speaking with Sanchez about the matter, but that if Sanchez had any questions, she should call Franks' attorney.
Franks stopped working for Samsung on October 29, 2014.
On November 13, 2014, Franks, along with several former employees of Samsung (collectively, "Samsung Class Plaintiffs"), filed a "Nationwide Collective Action Complaint" against Samsung in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleged that Samsung violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., by failing to pay overtime wages to its Field Sales Managers and by failing to maintain adequate records.
On January 9, 2015, after demanding that the complaint be withdrawn in light of the arbitration clause in its employment agreements, Samsung filed a "Motion to Dismiss and Compel Mediation/Arbitration." On January 27, 2015, the Samsung Class Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against Samsung without prejudice.
On January 26, 2015—the day before the Samsung Class Plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit against Samsung—Franks filed her unfair labor charge with the NLRB. In her charge, Franks alleged that Samsung violated her rights under § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), by: (1) maintaining an agreement that forced its employees, including Franks, to waive their rights to pursue collective action lawsuits against Samsung; (2) interrogating Franks about her pursuit of a collective action lawsuit against Samsung (citing Sanchez's September 3 phone call); and (3) ordering Franks not to talk to her coworkers about the prospect of filing a collective action lawsuit against Samsung (citing Sanhez's September 3 phone call and October 7 email).
On August 18, 2015, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that Samsung's employment agreement requiring individualized arbitration of employment-related disputes, and waiving the employees' rights to pursue class or collective action lawsuits against Samsung, violated the NLRA. The ALJ also ruled that Samsung violated the NLRA by ordering Franks not to talk to hercoworkers about filing a collective action lawsuit against Samsung. However, the ALJ found that Samsung did not unlawfully interrogate Franks about filing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial