Restoring Justice for Workers Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
The 'Restoring Justice for Workers Act' aims to restore workers' access to courts and collective action by largely eliminating mandatory arbitration clauses in employment and work-related contracts, including for independent contractors.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits predispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers that require workers to arbitrate work disputes or forgo collective legal action. It establishes strict conditions for any postdispute arbitration agreements to ensure they are truly voluntary and amends the National Labor Relations Act to protect employees' right to engage in concerted activities regarding work disputes. The bill also broadly defines 'worker' to include independent contractors, extending its protections to a wider range of working relationships.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation is crucial for restoring fundamental worker rights, addressing the significant power imbalance between employers and employees, and ensuring meaningful access to justice for violations such as wage theft, discrimination, and harassment. They contend that forced arbitration clauses, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, effectively silence workers and allow widespread non-enforcement of labor laws, making collective action often the only viable path to redress.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that arbitration provides a faster, more efficient, and less costly method of dispute resolution for both employers and employees compared to traditional litigation. They contend that eliminating predispute arbitration agreements would lead to a flood of lawsuits, increased legal costs for businesses, and slower resolution of disputes, potentially hindering economic activity and infringing on the freedom of contract.
The bill is concise and clearly articulates its purpose and mechanisms, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core intent and legal implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 4(a) of the bill, amending 29 U.S.C. 158(a)
Prohibiting Predispute Joint-Action Waivers in Employment
This provision makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to require employees, as a condition of employment, to agree not to pursue, bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of joint, class, or collective legal action arising from their employment. It also prohibits coercing or retaliating against employees for refusing such agreements. Any agreement that violates this paragraph is unenforceable and void, though it does not apply to agreements between an employer and a labor organization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision restores fundamental rights to collective action, which is essential for workers to effectively challenge violations of their rights, especially when individual claims are too small to pursue alone. They contend it reverses the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue this provision increases litigation risk and costs for employers, potentially leading to fewer jobs or reduced wages, and that collective actions can be inefficient and burdensome compared to individual dispute resolution.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances employers' desire for streamlined dispute resolution processes with workers' access to collective legal remedies and protection against retaliation for asserting those rights.
Section 5(a) of the bill, adding 9 U.S.C. 501(8)
Broad Definition of 'Worker' to Include Independent Contractors
This section defines the term 'worker' to include not only traditional employees but also any individual engaged by a covered entity to perform services or work as an independent contractor, regardless of the label or classification used by the entity. This significantly expands the scope of individuals protected by the bill's prohibitions on forced arbitration.
Section 5(a) of the bill, adding 9 U.S.C. 502(a)(1) and (3)
Prohibition on Predispute Forced Arbitration and Joint-Action Waivers
This is a central provision that declares any agreement made before a dispute arises, which requires a worker to arbitrate a work dispute or waive their right to join a class or collective action, to be invalid and unenforceable. This effectively bans mandatory predispute arbitration clauses in employment and work-related contracts, allowing workers to pursue claims in court.
Section 5(a) of the bill, adding 9 U.S.C. 502(a)(2) and (4)
Strict Requirements for Voluntary Postdispute Agreements
While predispute agreements are banned, workers can still voluntarily agree to arbitrate a dispute *after* it has arisen. However, such postdispute agreements are only valid and enforceable if they meet stringent conditions: they must not be required by the covered entity, obtained by coercion or threat, or made a condition of work. Additionally, workers must be informed in writing of their rights, provided a 45-day waiting period to consider the agreement, and give affirmative written consent.
Section 5(a) of the bill, adding 9 U.S.C. 502(a)(5)
Protection Against Retaliation for Refusing Arbitration
This provision explicitly prohibits covered entities 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 anti-retaliation measure is designed to ensure that workers can exercise their rights under the Act without fear of adverse consequences.
Section 6 of the bill
Immediate Applicability to Existing Agreements
This section states that the Act, and its amendments, take effect on the date of enactment and apply to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after that date. Crucially, this includes disputes or claims to which an arbitration agreement predating the Act applies. This means existing predispute arbitration clauses for work disputes would become unenforceable for any claims arising after the bill becomes law.
This provision mandates that any question regarding whether Chapter 5 applies to an arbitration agreement, and the validity or enforceability of an agreement under this chapter, must be decided by a court, not an arbitrator. This applies even if the contract attempts to delegate such decisions to an arbitrator.
Section 5(a) of the bill, adding 9 U.S.C. 502(d)(2)
Why it matters:While defining jurisdictional rules is standard legislative practice, this specific clause is strategically important. It prevents a 'gatekeeper' scenario where arbitrators, who may have an incentive to preserve arbitration, decide on the enforceability of arbitration clauses, ensuring an impartial judicial review.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is critical to prevent employers from using contractual language to force initial challenges to arbitration into arbitration itself, thereby ensuring that the fundamental question of access to justice is decided by an independent judicial body.
Case against: Opponents might argue this provision undermines the principle of arbitration by allowing courts to intervene in preliminary questions, potentially increasing litigation and delaying dispute resolution by adding an extra layer of judicial review.
Estimated impact: This shifts initial jurisdictional challenges regarding work dispute arbitration agreements from private arbitration forums to public courts, potentially increasing the federal judiciary's caseload for these preliminary matters.
This subsection creates a civil action in federal district court for any person injured by a violation of the anti-retaliation provision (i.e., being retaliated against for refusing to enter an arbitration agreement). The action can be brought within 2 years (or 3 years if the violation is willful), and relief can include reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and other appropriate remedies authorized under civil rights law.
Section 5(a) of the bill, adding 9 U.S.C. 502(c)
Why it matters:While important for enforcement, the primary focus of the bill is on the prohibitions themselves; the specific enforcement mechanism for retaliation is a secondary, albeit critical, detail that ensures the anti-retaliation clause has teeth.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision provides a strong and necessary enforcement mechanism for the anti-retaliation clause, giving workers a clear and direct path to seek redress and deterring employers from penalizing individuals for asserting their rights under the Act.
Case against: Opponents might argue that creating a new federal cause of action could lead to increased litigation and legal costs for employers, even for perceived threats of retaliation, potentially encouraging frivolous lawsuits.
Estimated impact: This provision provides a direct legal avenue for workers to challenge employer retaliation related to arbitration agreements, potentially increasing litigation specifically focused on such retaliatory actions.