Restoring Justice for Workers Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to eliminate forced arbitration and collective action waivers in employment contracts, empowering workers to pursue legal remedies in court.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits predispute arbitration agreements and predispute joint-action waivers in work disputes, effectively restoring workers' rights to pursue claims in court or join class/collective actions. It also amends the National Labor Relations Act to make it an unfair labor practice for employers to enforce such agreements or retaliate against workers for refusing them. Postdispute agreements are permitted only under strict conditions ensuring voluntariness and informed consent.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that forced arbitration provisions, often hidden in employment contracts, strip workers of their fundamental right to seek justice in court and prevent them from joining together to address systemic workplace abuses. They contend that this bill restores balance to the employer-employee relationship, ensures accountability for violations of labor laws, and protects the public interest by allowing for proper enforcement of workers' rights. The bill's findings explicitly state that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act and the National Labor Relations Act has undermined congressional intent and led to widespread nonenforcement of rights.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that arbitration offers a faster, less expensive, and more efficient alternative to litigation for resolving disputes, benefiting both employers and employees by avoiding lengthy court battles. They might contend that prohibiting predispute agreements could lead to a surge in costly lawsuits, burdening businesses and potentially discouraging job creation. Furthermore, they may argue that the bill interferes with the freedom of contract between parties.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 4(a)
Prohibiting Predispute Joint-Action Waivers in the NLRA
This provision amends Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to require or attempt to enforce any agreement that prevents employees from pursuing, bringing, joining, litigating, or supporting joint, class, or collective claims related to their employment. It also prohibits coercing or retaliating against employees for refusing such agreements. Any such agreement is deemed unenforceable and void, with an exception for agreements explicitly permitted by a contract between an employer and a labor organization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, restoring congressional intent to protect employees' right to engage in concerted activities, including collective legal action. They contend it is essential for workers to effectively challenge systemic violations of their rights, especially when individual claims might be too small to pursue alone.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this provision infringes on employers' ability to manage their workforce and streamline dispute resolution processes. They may contend that it could lead to an increase in class-action lawsuits, imposing significant costs and administrative burdens on businesses, and potentially creating an environment of increased litigation.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the employer's desire for efficient dispute resolution with the employee's right to collective legal action. It creates a tension between contractual freedom and the protection of fundamental labor rights, shifting power dynamics in favor of workers' collective bargaining and legal recourse.
Section 5(a), adding Section 502(a)(1) to Title 9 U.S.C.
Prohibition of Predispute Arbitration Agreements for Work Disputes
This section establishes a new chapter in Title 9 of the U.S. Code (Federal Arbitration Act) and explicitly declares that no predispute arbitration agreement requiring arbitration of a "work dispute" shall be valid or enforceable. This means employers cannot force workers to agree to individual arbitration of future employment-related disputes as a condition of employment.
Section 5(a), adding Section 502(a)(2) to Title 9 U.S.C.
Conditions for Valid Postdispute Arbitration Agreements
While predispute arbitration agreements are banned, this section allows for postdispute arbitration agreements (agreements to arbitrate a dispute *after* it has arisen) but only if strict conditions are met. These conditions include ensuring the agreement was not required, coerced, or a condition of employment; the worker was informed in writing of their right to refuse without retaliation; a 45-day waiting period was observed after disclosures; and the worker affirmatively consented in writing.
Section 5(a), adding Section 502(a)(5) to Title 9 U.S.C.
Prohibition on Retaliation for Refusing Arbitration
This section explicitly prohibits any covered entity from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a worker for refusing to enter into an agreement that provides for arbitration of a work dispute. This reinforces the voluntary nature of postdispute agreements and protects workers who choose to pursue their claims in court.
Section 5(a), adding Section 502(d)(2)(B) to Title 9 U.S.C.
Judicial Determination of Applicability and Enforceability
This clause specifies that any issue regarding the applicability of Chapter 5 (the new arbitration rules) to an agreement, and the validity and enforceability of an agreement under this chapter, must be determined by a court, not an arbitrator. This applies even if the contract attempts to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator, and regardless of whether the challenge is to the arbitration agreement specifically or to the broader contract.
Section 6
Effective Date and Retroactive Application
The Act takes effect on the date of its enactment. Crucially, it applies to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after this date, even if an arbitration agreement predates the enactment date. This means existing predispute arbitration agreements for work disputes would become unenforceable for any new claims.
Defines "worker" broadly to include not only "employees" but also "an individual who is engaged by a covered entity to perform services or work as an independent contractor (regardless of the label or classification assigned or used by the covered entity)."
Section 5(a), adding Section 501(8) to Title 9 U.S.C.
Why it matters:Definitions sections are standard legislative practice, but this specific definition has significant policy implications that might be intentionally placed there to avoid drawing immediate attention to its broad reach.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition is essential to prevent employers from reclassifying workers as "independent contractors" to circumvent the bill's protections. It ensures that the spirit of the law, protecting all individuals performing work, is upheld regardless of their formal classification.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this definition overreaches by potentially reclassifying legitimate independent contractors, thereby imposing employee-like regulations and costs on businesses that engage them. They may contend it creates uncertainty and stifles the flexibility offered by the gig economy.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of the bill's protections beyond traditional employees to a large and growing segment of the workforce, potentially impacting millions of independent contractors and the businesses that engage them.
States that Chapter 5 applies to covered entities and workers "engaged in activity affecting commerce to the fullest extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, including the work of persons engaged in domestic service in households."
Section 5(a), adding Section 502(d)(1) to Title 9 U.S.C.
Why it matters:While "affecting commerce" is standard, explicitly including "domestic service in households" is a specific and potentially impactful inclusion that might be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that historically vulnerable workers, such as domestic workers, who are often excluded from other labor protections, are explicitly covered by the bill's provisions, ensuring equal access to justice.
Case against: Opponents might argue that extending federal arbitration prohibitions to domestic service could create administrative burdens for private households and interfere with personal arrangements, potentially leading to unintended consequences for those who employ domestic help.
Estimated impact: Extends federal protections against forced arbitration to a significant and often underserved population of domestic workers, estimated to be several million individuals.