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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development



