Texas Federal Judge, After Rebuke, Slams 5th Circuit for 'Inaccurate' Statements
“In almost 20 years on the bench, this court has not had to issue any other writing like this one," U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison of the Southern District of Texas wrote in an order, responding to criticism from the Fifth Circuit.
March 12, 2019 at 03:10 PM
4 minute read
A Houston federal judge, admonished by an appeals court for appearing to criticize arbitration, has fired back with his own rebuke, calling the panel's characterization of his courtroom remarks “misleading and inaccurate.”
U.S District Court Judge Keith Ellison of the Southern District of Texas delivered the reproach Monday in an order in a labor case involving JPMorgan Chase & Co. call-center workers who alleged they've been shorted on wages. A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit panel, led by Judge Jerry Smith, said last month Ellison was wrong to say JPMorgan was required to send collective action notices to employees who had signed arbitration agreements.
Smith, in a footnote, said Ellison “obviously has a “jaundiced view” of arbitration, including the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that said employment agreements can prohibit workers from forming class actions. Smith warned Ellison to “avoid even the appearance of judicial endorsement on the merits of the action.”
Responding to the Fifth Circuit's criticism, Ellison, serving on the bench since 1999, said the questions he raised during court hearings in the JPMorgan case were taken out of context and misconstrued.
“In almost 20 years on the bench, this court has not had to issue any other writing like this one. But, never before has an appellate judge mischaracterized the trial record so significantly, and it appears, willfully,” Ellison said.
Ellison said that if the case returns to the same appeals judges, “it is to be hoped that the panel can achieve a higher degree of accuracy and candor. This court can ill afford the time and effort that are required to set right such errors.”
Ellison rejected the suggestion that he had prejudged the merits of the workers' complaint, which alleges JPMorgan violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying certain employees for “off the clock” work. The collective action potentially involves 42,000 current and former employees.
Smith pointed to Ellison's comments about the workers being “victims of this illegality,” and said that it suggested JPMorgan violated labor law. He also said Ellison referred to “further disenfranchisement]” of employees even beyond the “huge compromise of individuals' rights” that occurred when they signed arbitration agreements.
Quoting from the transcript of the hearing, Ellison in his response pointed out the comment were raised in a hypothetical question, and they were not an endorsement of either side in the dispute.
“Many other references during the hearing further validate the obvious truth that this court had not assumed illegality, or any misconduct, on the part of the defendant,” Ellison wrote.
JPMorgan's lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Clif Alexander, a partner at Anderson Alexander in Corpus Christi, Texas, said at the Fifth Circuit's argument hearing it appears the judges were angry about some of Ellison's comments. But Alexander said it was clear to him that Ellison was not making a comment on the actual merits of the case during the hearings.
“It came off like hypothetical questions or a dialogue with the attorneys to get a better understanding of Chase's opinion,” Alexander said Tuesday. “He was just trying to drill down on the issue more.”
Alexander said they are weighing their options, including asking the full Fifth Circuit to review the panel's decision.
Ellison concluded his order with a footnote that flipped the tables on the Fifth Circuit.
“Judge Smith's entire opinion seems to take as a given that the arbitration agreements that defendant's employees may have signed are valid and enforceable,” the judge wrote. He noted that the plaintiffs do not concede as much, and that JPMorgan hasn't made any effort to push the case from court to arbitration.
Read Ellison's order below:
Read more:
How a Major SCOTUS Decision in Favor of Arbitration Is Shaping the Landscape
Pa. Federal Judge Raises Broad Concerns About Arbitration's Fairness
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 AllTexas Supreme Court Grapples Over Fifth Circuit Question on State Usury Law
5 minute readEx-Six Flags CLO Lands New C-Suite Post—This Time as HR Chief
Paxton's 2024 Agenda: Immigration, Climate, Transgender Issues, Social Media, Abortion, Elections
9 minute readTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
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