
    CITI TRENDS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
    No. 15-60913 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 08/10/2016
    Edward M. Cherof, Esq., Jonathan J. Spitz, Esq., Atlanta, GA, Daniel D. Sehu-droff, New York, NY, Jackson Lewis, P.C., for Petitioner Cross-Respondent.
    Linda Dreeben, Esq., Deputy Associate General Counsel, Jared David Cantor, Attorney, Kira Dellinger Vol, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate & Supreme Court Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, Claude T. Harrell, Jr., Atlanta, GA, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

A panel of the National Labor Relations Board declared Petitioner/Cross-Respondent Citi Trends, Incorporated’s Mandatory Arbitration Agreement unlawful because it “requires employees to waive their right to maintain class or collective actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial.” Citi Trends petitions for review of the Board’s order. The Board has filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order.

The Board concedes, as it must, that its order contravenes our published decisions in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, which hold that “an employer does not engage in unfair labor practices by maintaining and enforcing an arbitration agreement prohibiting employee class or collective actions and requiring employment-related claims to be resolved through individual arbitration.” Although the Board asks us to reconsider our holdings in D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil, this Court is bound by its prior published decisions.

Citi Trends’s petition for review of the Board’s order is therefore GRANTED. The Board’s cross-application for enforcement of its order is hereby DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013).
     
      
      . 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015).
     
      
      . Id. at 1016 (citing D.R. Horton, Til F.3d at 362).
     
      
      . Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. NLRB, 633 Fed. Appx. 613, 615 (5th Cir. 2016) (‘‘[T]he Board vigorously ... urges this court to reconsider its decision in D.R. Horton. But because this court’s rule of orderliness prevents one panel from overruling the decision of a prior panel, we simply note that no intervening change in the law permits reconsideration of our precedent." (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).
     