After AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), defendant Nordstrom, revised its employee handbook to preclude class actions. Weeks later, the plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action, and Nordstom moved to compel individual arbitration. The district court denied the motion, holding that the revision was not valid.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Nordstrom provided sufficient notice of the change by mailing the revised handbook to its employees and giving them thirty days to decide whether to remain employed by Nordstrom. Under California contract law, the revised handbook constituted a binding agreement between the parties. The law did not require Nordstrom to list the policy revisions in the cover letter that it sent with the revised handbook. Nor did the law require Nordstrom to advise its employees that their continued employment constituted acceptance of the revised policy.
Davis v. Nordstrom is available here.