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 | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25



