Workforce Bulletin

Meet Jill Bigler, a dynamic employment attorney who blends litigation experience with practical insights to guide clients through complex workplace challenges.

In this one-on-one interview, Jill joins fellow Epstein Becker Green attorney George Whipple to discuss how her litigation background shapes her approach to drafting agreements and counseling clients. Drawing on her courtroom experience, Jill shares how she helps businesses anticipate outcomes, navigate such gray areas as Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations, and make informed decisions that balance legal risks with business objectives.

Jill also opens up about the emotional side of employment law, offering strategies for managing tensions between employers and employees. From leveraging mediation to resolve disputes, to helping clients separate emotions from business decisions, Jill’s approach emphasizes empathy, collaboration, and a clear-eyed strategy.

With a career rooted in practical problem-solving and a commitment to client success, Jill’s insights offer valuable guidance for navigating the ever-evolving landscape of employment law.

Case law related to the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”) continues to develop.  In late 2024, the Third Circuit seemed poised to bring further clarity as to which claims fall within the EFAA and, therefore, are shielded from pre-dispute arbitration agreements. On April 6, 2025, the Court provided guidance related to the timing of “disputes” as used in the statutory text, but remanded for further consideration of whether an arbitration agreement existed at all under New Jersey law. Cornelius v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2025 WL 980309 (3d Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).

Cornelius was a longtime CVS employee who alleged that she experienced discrimination from her male supervisor. After Cornelius filed numerous internal complaints, CVS terminated her employment in November 2021. She brought a Charge to the EEOC, received a right-to-sue letter, and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CVS moved to compel arbitration pursuant to its “Arbitration Policy.” Plaintiff opposed, arguing that the EFAA rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to her claims.  The District Court disagreed, ruling that the EFAA did not apply to Cornelius’s claims because “her claims did not constitute a ‘sexual harassment dispute’” within the meaning of the statute, and compelled arbitration. Id. at *2.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re recapping recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions and their impact on employers across the country.

The Ninth Circuit has issued its long-awaited ruling in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, perhaps putting a nail in the coffin of the controversial California law known as AB 51, which would have made it criminal conduct to require an applicant or employee to sign an arbitration agreement.

The history of AB 51 and the case challenging it is a tortuous one, to say the least, but the issue has always remained the same: was the California legislature too clever in its attempt to circumvent the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Epic Systems?

Silence can be telling.

That is especially so in the legal industry.

In the context of a hearing or oral argument, if judges or justices don’t ask an attorney a question, it can be incredibly encouraging – or incredibly discouraging.  It often means that the judges or justices have already made up their minds after having read the parties’ briefs and simply don’t have any questions or don’t need to hear anything more.

Employers in the First Circuit know that unconscionability challenges to employment arbitration agreements are commonplace. In Trainor v. Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island recently addressed an employee’s arguments that an agreement’s venue clause requiring a Rhode Island employee to arbitrate her claims in Utah and a provision excluding certain claims from the scope of the arbitration agreement rendered the arbitration agreement unconscionable and unenforceable. The court rejected the first argument based ...

In response to the increased use and enforcement of class and collective action waivers, plaintiffs’ attorneys are now relying on a new strategy to gain leverage over businesses.  More specifically, they have started to commence mass arbitrations by simultaneously filing hundreds—and in some cases, thousands—of individual arbitration demands in an effort to trigger a business’ obligation to pay its share of filing fees for the arbitrations.

Depending on the number of arbitration demands at issue, the filing fees alone can add up to tens of millions of dollars.

Postmates ...

Given the ever-increasing number of wage-hour class and collective actions being filed against employers, it is no surprise that many employers have turned to arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers as a first line of defense, particularly after the United States Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 Epic Systems v. Lewis decision.

If there is a common misconception about Epic Systems, however, it is that the Supreme Court concluded that all arbitration agreements with all employees are enforceable under all circumstances.  The Court reached no such ...

As we wrote here recently,  two federal courts in California rejected Postmates’ attempt to escape having to defend thousands of individual arbitrations filed by drivers contending they have been misclassified as independent contractors. Those decisions require Postmates to pay millions in arbitration fees alone.

A federal court in Illinois has now reached the same conclusion, holding that Postmates must proceed with more than 200 individual arbitrations that will cost Postmates $11 million in arbitration fees.

Arbitration agreements with class action waivers have become ...

We have written here about the efforts of several gig economy companies like DoorDash to avoid having to conduct – and pay for – thousands of individual arbitrations alleging that their workers had been misclassified.

As we have said before, companies that implement arbitration agreements with class action waivers must be careful what they ask for.  By using such agreements, they run the risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations, the cost of which could threaten the companies’ very existence.  (In California, we estimate that the arbitration costs ...

Be careful what you ask for.

We have used that expression frequently when writing about recent federal court orders requiring DoorDash and Postmates to conduct thousands of individual arbitrations in California pursuant to the terms of their arbitration agreements with their drivers.

Thousands of individual arbitrations for which DoorDash and Postmates would have to pay many millions of dollars in arbitration fees alone.

The risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations attends any time an employer seeks the benefits of an arbitration agreement ...

Recently, we wrote here about a federal court order requiring DoorDash to conduct more than 5,000 individual arbitrations under the terms of its mandatory arbitration agreements, with each arbitration to address claims that it had misclassified its drivers as independent contractors.

The order would fall in the category of “Be Careful What You Wish For.”  In seeking to avoid class or collective actions by having employees sign arbitration agreements with class action waivers, employers face the possibility of hundreds or thousands of individual arbitration for which they ...

Following are the top stories featured in this week's #WorkforceWednesday, from Employment Law This Week:

Employee Travel and the Coronavirus

The threat of COVID-19 is growing, and U.S. companies are on high alert. International travel by employees is an area of particular concern to employers. For more, check out our resource center at https://www.ebglaw.com/coronavirus.

NLRB Joint-Employment Rule to Take Effect

The National Labor Relations Board ...

It’s no secret that many employers have employees sign arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers in the hopes of avoiding the massive wage-hour lawsuits that have become so prevalent in the past two decades.

Nor is it any secret that, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems affirming that such agreements can be valid, even more employers have chosen to use them with their workforces.

But, in discussing with clients whether to implement such agreements, lawyers worth their salt have always told their clients this: “Be careful what you ...

[caption id="attachment_1437" align="alignright" width="98"] Steven M. Swirsky[/caption]

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has now sided with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) in its decision in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, and found that an employer’s arbitration agreement that it required all of its workers to sign, requiring them to bring any wage and hour claims that they have against the company in individual arbitrations “violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and is unenforceable under the Federal ...

By John F. Fullerton III and Jason Kaufman

In its recent decision in Santoro v. Accenture Federal Services, LLC [pdf], the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has joined the Fifth Circuit [pdf] in narrowly interpreting the prohibition against predispute arbitration agreements in the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”) -- and employers can breathe a further sigh of relief.

Dodd-Frank amended the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) to, among other things, prohibit agreements requiring predispute arbitration of SOX claims (see 18 ...

By John F. Fullerton III and Jason Kaufman

Almost four years after it was enacted in 2010, the full impact of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) on the enforceability of predispute arbitration agreements is not completely clear.  Some whistleblower retaliation claims are still subject to mandatory arbitration agreements, while others plainly are not, depending upon when the arbitration agreement was executed, the statute under which the claim is brought, and the jurisdiction in which the employer and employee find themselves.

By Amy Messigian

Last month, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a former employee of Forever 21 must try her claims against the retailer in arbitration, enforcing the company’s employment arbitration policy and reversing a lower court decision finding the agreement unconscionable under California law.  The plaintiff, Maribel Baltazar, alleged that she had been discriminated against by the retailer due to her race and sexually harassed by a supervisor and coworker.  She filed a complaint against Forever 21 and several of its employees in the Los Angeles Superior Court and ...

By William Stein

In rolling out arbitration policies, retail employers should heed the recent California Court of Appeal decision Gorlach v. The Sports Club Co. That case gives employers reason to be cautious when asking employees to sign agreements requiring them to arbitrate any disputes arising out of their employment.  In that case, the trial court found the former Director of Human Resources, who was responsible for obtaining employees’ signatures on a mutual agreement to arbitrate claims, intentionally misled the company into believing that had signed the agreement ...

It seems with each passing month the National Labor Relations Board or its Acting General Counsel opens yet another new front on its assault on non-union employers.  A trend has emerged which puts labor law in conflict with standard employment practices.  From hire, to control of the workplace and employer property, to the manner post-termination disputes are handled, the NLRB is directing employers to ignore conventional wisdom, and often times other legal mandates, to alter the way they deal with their employees.

Much attention has been given to the NLRB’s more direct pro-union ...

By:  John F. Fullerton III

This is the third in our series of posts on practice and procedure in employment-related arbitrations before FINRA.  Check back often for future posts, subscribe by e-mail (see the sidebar), or follow @FSemployer on Twitter so you don’t miss any updates!

Once upon a time, it was mandatory under Form U4 that registered representatives file any statutory claims of discrimination (such as age, gender, or race discrimination) in arbitration rather than in court.  A well known Supreme Court case decided in 1991, Gilmer v.  Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.

By:  John F. Fullerton III

This is the second in our series of posts on practice and procedure in employment-related arbitrations before FINRA.  Check back often for future posts, subscribe by e-mail (see the sidebar), or follow @FSemployer on Twitter so you don’t miss any updates!

As a general rule, it is more common to read about employers who have been sued in court by a former employee attempting to compel the claims into arbitration than an employer trying to compel arbitration claims to be filed in court.  Yet, under the occasionally overlooked FINRA Rule 13803, employers who ...

By:  Dena L. Narbaitz

Here is the scenario:  your company, a FINRA Member Firm, terminates a broker for “violation of company policies” and reports this as the reason for termination on the broker’s Form U-5 (Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration).  The broker then sues your company in state court asserting several claims, including defamation for the language contained on his Form U-5.  Your company thinks there is a good legal basis to have the broker’s claims dismissed as a matter of law before the case is tried.  Should your company litigate the case ...

Like several other statutes, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) requires whistleblowers to initiate their complaints by an administrative filing with the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But when a preferred outcome in that designated arena appears unlikely, a whistleblower may be allowed to abandon the administrative process before a final order issues and seek a new opportunity in court.  Faced with the prospect of another round of de novo litigation, employers may turn increasingly to pre-dispute arbitration agreements as an alternative to litigating in court.

As exemplified by Stone v. Instrumentation Laboratory Co.(4th Cir. 2009) (pdf), filing an administrative complaint and participating in the administrative process, as required by SOX, do not foreclose access to a federal court before the issuance of a final administrative order. The court explained that the preclusion doctrine, intended to avoid duplicative litigation, does not bar de novo consideration by a federal district court if a lawsuit is filed at least 180 days after the administrative filing and before the Department of Labor has issued a final decision, even where administrative proceedings have progressed to Administrative Review Board consideration of an administrative law judge’s dismissal of a complaint.