<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
	<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Blank Rome  Internal Investigations]]></title>
	<link>http://www.blankrome.com/rss.cfm?feedtype=publications&amp;sectorID=251</link> 
	<description>The lastest publications from blankrome.com.</description>
	<language>en-us</language> 
	<docs>http://www.blankrome.com/rss.cfm</docs> 
	 
	<webMaster>webmaster@blankrome.com</webMaster>
	
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[NLRB: Class Action Waivers Unfair Under the NLRA]]></title>
		<link>http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&amp;itemID=2741</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The National Labor Relations Board (&amp;ldquo;NLRB&amp;rdquo;) recently called into question the growing practice of including class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements, holding that the mandatory waiver of an employee&amp;rsquo;s right to pursue class or collective action litigation is an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (&amp;ldquo;NLRA&amp;rdquo;).&amp;nbsp; The NLRB&amp;rsquo;s January 3, 2012, decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, Case 12-CA-25764, serves as an important reminder that the state of the law regarding class action waivers remains unsettled, and that employers should tread carefully in considering whether to add class action waivers to an arbitration program.]]></description>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&amp;itemID=2741</guid>
	</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>