• 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 / EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPLIES BROAD INTERPRETATION OF CONCEPCION TO UPHOLD CLASS-WAIVER ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE

EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPLIES BROAD INTERPRETATION OF CONCEPCION TO UPHOLD CLASS-WAIVER ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE

January 14, 2013 by Carlton Fields

The Eighth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s refusal to compel arbitration in an employment dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act, enforcing a class-waiver arbitration clause. The district court interpreted the FLSA as providing a right to a class action, and had found that the class waiver in this case was therefore invalid. The district court had also held that Concepcion was not controlling in the employment context, relying on a recent National Labor Relations Board decision. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that nothing in the text or legislative history of the FLSA indicates a congressional intent to bar employees from agreeing to arbitrate FLSA claims individually, and that there is no conflict between the FLSA and the FAA. The Eighth Circuit further held that the NLRB decision relied on by the district court was not entitled to deference. In any event, the court explained, the NLRB decision limited its holding to arbitration agreements barring all concerted actions, unlike the agreement in this case, which did not preclude reporting to administrative agencies, which themselves could file representative class suits. The court also rejected the notion that Concepcion and other U.S. Supreme Court precedent upholding the enforceability of class waivers is limited to the consumer context. Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., No. 12-1719 (8th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

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.