Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 13 Jan 2017

Whether an agreement that requires an employer and an employee to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration, and waive class and collective proceedings, is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

In the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 2017, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of employers by allowing them to enforce arbitration agreements signed by employees and thus preventing collective legal action against them. The issue at hand was whether labor laws that allow workers to band together in legal actions against their employer override federal arbitration law which favors individual dispute resolution. In a 5-4 decision led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court held that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to prohibit workers from suing collectively over issues such as wages and working conditions. This ruling is significant because it strengthens businesses' ability to mandate individualized proceedings for resolving workplace disputes.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

In the dissenting opinion for EPIC SYSTEMS CORP. v. LEWIS, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision was egregiously wrong and would result in a huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance well-being of vulnerable workers. She contended that arbitration clauses like those at issue undermine worker protection laws by preventing employees from banding together to confront an employer about workplace violations such as wage theft, sexual harassment or gender discrimination. The justice also pointed out historical precedents where collective action has been instrumental in improving working conditions and rights for employees across various industries. Furthermore, she criticized the court’s interpretation of Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), arguing it should not be used to override labor protections enshrined in National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In her view, NLRA clearly protects workers' right to engage in "concerted activities" including legal proceedings aimed at improving their working conditions.