The Meaning and Contemporary Vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act

30 Pages Posted: 26 Nov 2013 Last revised: 7 Feb 2014

See all articles by Matthew Finkin

Matthew Finkin

University of Illinois College of Law

Date Written: November 26, 2013


Section 2 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 declares it to be the public policy of the United States that employees have the right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. Section 3 denies federal courts the power to enforce “any promise or undertaking” in violation of Section 2. However, it has become rather common today for employers not only to require employees to bring virtually any legal employment claim only in an arbitration system of the employer’s devising, but to require them to waive the ability to do so as part of any class or group. The latter provision has been challenged as unenforceable under Norris-LaGuardia; but, thus far, the courts have brushed the argument – and the Act – aside. This essay deals with the provenance and meaning of sections 2 and 3. It argues that Norris-LaGuardia continues to speak to the courts today; that it does render these contractual wavers unenforceable in the federal courts.

Suggested Citation

Finkin, Matthew W., The Meaning and Contemporary Vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (November 26, 2013). Nebraska Law Review, August 2014, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN:

Matthew W. Finkin (Contact Author)

University of Illinois College of Law ( email )

504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics