DOUG MINER V. ECOLAB, INC., No. 17-56183 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOUG MINER, an individual, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-56183 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02313-FMO-JC Plaintiff-Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v. ECOLAB, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Ecolab, Inc. appeals from the district court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration of federal and state wage-and-hour claims brought by an employee in a putative class and collective action. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16. We review de novo the district court’s denial of arbitration. Poublon * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1259 (9th Cir. 2017). We vacate and remand. The district court denied Ecolab’s motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a class and collective action waiver, making the agreement to arbitrate unenforceable under Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016). After the district court entered its order, the Supreme Court overruled Morris, and held that such agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act and must be enforced as written under the Federal Arbitration Act. See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1632 (2018). We vacate the district court’s order denying Ecolab’s motion to compel arbitration and remand for further proceedings in light of Epic Systems Corporation. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 17-56183

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.