Supreme Court class arbitration case could have big implications for employers
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could have a big impact on employment law.
March 26, 2013 at 06:15 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could have a big impact on employment law.
In Oxford Health Plans v. John Sutter, 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 yesterday.
Employment lawyers are closely watching the case, as it could have implications for employers. “If the court rules that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by allowing a class procedure, it would be quite logical that the same principle would apply to employment arbitrations,” Seyfarth Shaw Partner Richard Alfred told Thomson Reuters.
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 say the benefits of arbitration could disappear if the high court rules 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. “I think [employers] are worried about plaintiffs figuring out this is an option and taking advantage of it.”
For more recent InsideCounsel articles concerning arbitration, read:
Court revives antitrust case against grocers
Litigation: Part 2—20 things to consider when negotiating arbitration provisions
Litigation: Part 1—20 things to consider when negotiating arbitration provisions
Credit card companies go to trial over arbitration agreement
5 things to know about Texas arbitration law
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could have a big impact on employment law.
In Oxford Health Plans v. John Sutter, 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 yesterday.
Employment lawyers are closely watching the case, as it could have implications for employers. “If the court rules that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by allowing a class procedure, it would be quite logical that the same principle would apply to employment arbitrations,”
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 say the benefits of arbitration could disappear if the high court rules 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,”
For more recent InsideCounsel articles concerning arbitration, read:
Court revives antitrust case against grocers
Litigation: Part 2—20 things to consider when negotiating arbitration provisions
Litigation: Part 1—20 things to consider when negotiating arbitration provisions
Credit card companies go to trial over arbitration agreement
5 things to know about Texas arbitration law
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250