Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Supreme Court upholds class arbitration decision

Justices say arbitrator’s decision holds weight and group may pursue arbitration as a class

The high court has handed down its decision in Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, a case that employers had been closely watching. And, well, the news isn’t so great.

First, some background. In the case, a doctor sued Oxford Health Plans in state court on behalf of a proposed class of physicians who claimed the health insurer underpaid them. Oxford moved the case into arbitration per a contract to which the physicians had agreed. The arbitrator ruled that the physicians could pursue arbitration against Oxford as a class, even though the contract’s arbitration clause didn’t address class arbitration. A trial court and the 3rd Circuit both affirmed the ruling. The case went to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in March.

Various groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Equal Employment Advisory Committee and the Voice of the Defense Bar, filed amicus briefs in support of Oxford. They said the benefits of arbitration could disappear if the high court ruled for the plaintiffs.

“If plaintiffs’ lawyers figure out they could pursue a class arbitration, employers could be more liable more often (and) arbitration could be less cheap,” Saint Louis University School of Law Professor Marcia McCormick told Thomson Reuters in March. “I think [employers] are worried about plaintiffs figuring out this is an option and taking advantage of it.”

But yesterday, the high court unanimously ruled that the group of doctors could collectively arbitrate the dispute. Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the court had limited ability under the Federal Arbitration Act to review an arbitrator’s decision finding that a contract allows for class arbitration.

Although the effects of the decision remain to be seen, Mayer Brown Partner Andrew Pincus told Thomson Reuters that if employers want to prohibit class arbitration, “they should say so explicitly in their arbitration agreements.”

For more recent InsideCounsel articles about arbitration, read:

Court expands Concepcion’s reach in employment case

Labor: New options for compelling arbitration in employment disputes

9th Circuit arbitration decision could impact employment disputes

4th Circuit applies Concepcion in FLSA case

Supreme Court seems likely to support individual arbitration in AmExantitrust class action

Supreme Court class arbitration case could have big implications for employers

Ashley Post

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.