Supreme Court Says "Wait a Minute!" to Using Arbitration to Prevent Class Action Claims

17 June 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

In the past couple of years, the United States Supreme Court has issued several arbitration decisions that many have thought might spell the roadmap for avoiding the wave of class action litigation brought against employers. Specifically, in Stolt-Nielsen v. Animal Feeds International, the Court ruled that arbitration could not be conducted on a class action basis unless the arbitration agreement specifically allowed for class claims. In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Court further stated that states generally cannot impose non-contract restrictions on the enforcement of arbitration agreements because the Federal Arbitration Act creates a national policy favoring enforcement. In response to these decisions, many have suggested that employers can prevent class action claims by having employees sign arbitration agreements requiring the resolution of disputes through arbitration and require such arbitration proceedings to occur only on an individual basis.Slow down the celebration, the Supreme Court has essentially said in its recent Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter decision.

In the case, a doctor and an insurer had agreed to submit disputes arising out of the contract between them to arbitration. However, the arbitration agreement neither specifically permitted nor specifically prohibited arbitration claims to be brought on a class basis. When the doctor sought to bring his claim in arbitration on a class basis, the insurer claimed, in reliance on Stolt-Nielsen, that because the arbitration agreement did not specifically allow for class claims in arbitration, the doctor could not proceed with his class claims.

The arbitrator disagreed and interpreted the agreement to include class claims and, despite repeatedly suggesting its disagreement with that interpretation, the Supreme Court refused to disturb the result. The key to the ruling was that the arbitration agreement at issue left interpretation of the agreement to the arbitrator such that, because the arbitrator’s interpretation was based on the language of the agreement itself, the Court had to allow the result to stand. The Court further explained that the reason for the apparent departure from Stolt-Nielsen was that in the earlier decision, the parties had specifically agreed that the interpretation of the arbitration agreement was not the purview of the arbitrator, such that he could not conclude class arbitration was permissible where the agreement did not expressly say so.

Oxford Health Plans offers two immediately important lessons for employers that have either adopted arbitration agreements for the resolution of employment claims or are considering doing so: (1) make sure the arbitration agreement expressly covers the types of claims subject to arbitration and expressly precludes the types of claims — particularly class claims — that are barred from arbitration so that there is no ambiguity for an arbitrator to misinterpret; and (2) remember that arbitration is not a panacea for favorable resolution of employment claims. While arbitration offers important potential advantages, it is also subject to one major concern: an arbitrator’s seemingly illogical decision. As the Supreme Court pointed out, courts can vacate arbitration rulings only if the arbitrator strays from the task of interpreting the agreement, but cannot do so if the arbitrator performed that task and simply did so poorly. In other words, even if an arbitrator’s decision seems plainly erroneous, if the decision has a basis in the language of the arbitration agreement, the erroneous decision will stand. We thus again suggest that before adopting a strategy of requiring employment disputes be resolved through arbitration, employers should carefully think through and consult with counsel regarding the pros and cons of doing so.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.