Labor: New options for compelling arbitration in employment disputes

An employer’s right to require arbitration of class claims is not universal

Thanks to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court involving a consumer class action claim, employers now have more options for requiring arbitration as to most class action and single-party employment litigation. In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the court found that the Federal Arbitration Act controlled over state laws that nullify binding arbitration for class claims. This decision has been applied to qualifying arbitration agreements in employee handbooks acknowledged by the employee. See Liman v. Cellco P’ship, Green v. SuperShuttle Int’l, Inc., and Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC.

An employer’s right to require arbitration of class claims is not universal and does require specific qualifying elements. This article will address two of those key elements: consent and scope.

Contributing Author

author image

Cheryl Wilke

Cheryl Wilke is a partner in the Ft. Lauderdale office of Hinshaw & Culbertson and focuses her practice in the representation of employers in...

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.