Reinsurance Focus

In Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc., the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration and permitted a class action employee-overtime lawsuit to go forward despite the parties’ putative agreement to arbitrate such disputes on a non-class basis. While the court cited Concepcion for the “fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract,” it did not enforce the underlying class arbitration waiver agreement, finding that under state law, the underlying arbitration agreement was “illusory” and unenforceable because the employer reserved the right to change the agreement at any time. A similar approach (albeit, with a different outcome) was taken in another class action suit, Gore v. Alltell Communications, LLC. There, the Seventh Circuit reversed an order denying a motion to compel individual arbitration based on its interpretation of an arbitration agreement under state law. The court found that the arbitration agreement, which was contained in only the second of two contracts between the parties, applied to the parties’ dispute because it unambiguously provided that “any dispute arising out of” the agreement would “be settled by arbitration” on a non-class basis. The court held that based on the plaintiff’s allegations, all of the plaintiff’s causes of action could be deemed to arise from the second agreement, thus falling within the scope of the arbitration clause. The court further held that even the question of whether the agreement was unconscionable should be decided in arbitration because plaintiff challenged the entire agreement, not just the arbitration clause. Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc., Case No. 10-20845 (5th Cir. Jan. 25, 2012); Gore v. Alltel Communications, LLC, Case No. 11-2089 (7th Cir. January 19, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.