Changing The Arbitration Rules In The Middle Of The Game.

After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1740, [179 L.Ed.2d 742], Nordstrom made revisions to its employee arbitration policy contained in its employee handbook. These changes precluded employees from bringing most class action lawsuits. Weeks later, plaintiff filed a class action against Nordstrom, alleging violations of various state and federal laws. Nordstrom sought to compel plaintiff to submit to arbitration on her individual claims, and the federal district court denied the motion, holding that plaintiff and Nordstrom had not entered into a valid arbitration agreement with respect to the recent revision. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding plaintiff and Nordstrom had entered an agreement that employment disputes would be resolved through arbitration, and that Nordstrom “was permitted to unilaterally change the terms of the [plaintiff’s] employment, including those terms included in its employee handbook.” (Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc. (Ninth Cir.; June 23, 2014) 755 F.3d 1089.)