• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / COURT GRANTS MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING ARBITRATION, AND FOUND THAT ISSUE OF WHETHER ARBITRATION CLAUSE ALLOWS FOR CLASS ARBITRATION IS QUESTION FOR ARBITRATOR, NOT COURT

COURT GRANTS MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING ARBITRATION, AND FOUND THAT ISSUE OF WHETHER ARBITRATION CLAUSE ALLOWS FOR CLASS ARBITRATION IS QUESTION FOR ARBITRATOR, NOT COURT

June 29, 2016 by Carlton Fields

In this case, Jeffrey Hedrick brought an action in Kansas federal court on behalf of himself and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) against BNC National Bank, Hedrick’s employer. The bank filed a motion to stay, or dismiss, the action pending arbitration, under the Federal Arbitration Act, or in the alternative, to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Given that his employment agreement contained an arbitration clause, Hedrick did not dispute his claim is subject to arbitration and did not oppose staying the case pending arbitration. However he argued that the arbitrator, rather than the court, should decide whether the arbitration can proceed as a class claim under the FLSA. The bank argued that the court should decide the class arbitration issue, and that the claim should proceed to arbitration as an individual claim.

Given that the bank’s motion to stay the action pending arbitration was unopposed, the Kansas federal court granted the motion. The court also noted that the Tenth Circuit has not directly addressed the question of who determines the availability of class arbitration. However, the court noted that that there are “fundamental differences” between bilateral and class-wide arbitration that “presumably create gateway issues of arbitrability that should be resolved by the court, rather than the arbitrator”. However, the court went on to hold that “even assuming that the availability of class arbitration is a ‘question of arbitrability’, … the arbitrator [in this case] must determine this question as the Employment Agreement provides ‘clear and unmistakable evidence’ that the parties intended the arbitrator to determine questions of arbitrability.” In this regard, the court noted that the arbitration clause provided that the arbitration would be administered by the American Arbitration Association under its National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes, which state that “[t]he Arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” Thus, the court found that the parties’ incorporation of these rules into their arbitration clause constitutes “clear and unmistakable” delegation of questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and thus, that the class arbitration issue must be determined by the arbitrator.

Hedrick v. BNC National Bank, No. 15-9358 (D. Kan. May 16, 2016).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.