For decades now, arbitration has time and again proven its worth, in the main because of the efficiency and economy of its individualized resolution of disputes, and for its concomitant exclusion of more cumbersome and expensive proceedings, such as class actions.  Yet there are those who insist agreements to arbitrate disputes on a one-to-one basis are voided when a complaining party seeks to represent a class of similarly situated claimants.

To be sure, an imposing line of Supreme Court precedents have soundly rejected the latter proposition.  Today we add Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis to that body of jurisprudence.  In this newest ruling, the high court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims to a right to institute class litigation, and bid all parties to return to the arbitral forum.  Epic is notable, not only for its precise enforcement of the agreements to arbitrate, but also for the valuable lessons it imparts regarding statutory construction and judicial restraint.  Before proceeding, however, the discussion of a few preliminary matters will assist in better comprehending the import of this Epic holding.  

The Federal Arbitration Act   

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]