U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Enforceability of Class Arbitration Waivers
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.24.18
On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its long‑awaited opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, confirming the enforceability of class and collective action arbitration waivers. In doing so, the Court reconciled supposedly conflicting language from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). By a vote of five to four, the Court held that the NLRA does not call for an exception to the general rule that arbitration agreements providing for individual proceedings must be enforced by their terms.
In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Court reviewed three separate lawsuits in which employers sought to enforce individual arbitration pursuant to written agreements with their employees. The employees tried to pursue wage and hour claims through class or collective actions filed in federal court. The employees argued that Section 7 of the NLRA, which broadly protects workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively, trumped the FAA and made it unlawful for their employers to compel them to arbitrate their disputes exclusively on an individual basis.
Justice Gorsuch, penning the majority opinion, rejected the employees’ arguments. The majority reasoned that the general language of Section 7 of the NLRA, protecting the rights of employees to engage in “other concerted activities for the purpose of. . . other mutual aid or protection,” does not “even hint at a wish to displace the Arbitration Act—let alone accomplish that much clearly and manifestly, as our precedents demand.” In the absence of clear evidence that Congress intended for the NLRA to override the FAA, the majority held courts must apply the FAA. That, in turn, requires courts to “enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms—including terms providing for individualized proceedings.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?



