In the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Czizek in 1923, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an employee's compensation claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Mr. Czizek, was injured while working for Western Union and sought damages from his employer. However, he had signed a contract agreeing to arbitration in such cases rather than litigation. The court held that this agreement did not bar him from pursuing his FELA claim in court because Congress intended for these claims to be resolved judicially rather than through private arbitration agreements between employers and employees. Therefore, despite having agreed to arbitrate any disputes with his employer when he was hired, Mr.Czizek could still sue Western Union under FELA for injuries sustained during employment.

In the dissenting opinion for Western Union Telegraph Company v. Czizek, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a telegraph company could not limit its liability for mistakes in messages to an amount less than actual damages suffered by the sender. He argued that such limitations were common and necessary in industries where potential damages far exceeded service charges, like transportation or communication companies. The limitation of liability was clearly stated on the telegram form and thus constituted part of their contract with customers. If customers wanted full protection against errors, they had an option to pay extra fees for repeated messages which would be checked more thoroughly before transmission. Therefore, he believed it was unjustifiable to penalize these companies beyond agreed terms when they made honest mistakes despite taking reasonable precautions.