• 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 / THIRD CIRCUIT HOLDS OVERTIME CLASS ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION

THIRD CIRCUIT HOLDS OVERTIME CLASS ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION

May 11, 2017 by John Pitblado

The Third Circuit recently affirmed the decision of a Pennsylvania district court, holding that a class action involving overtime compensation filed against the operating companies of a senior care facility is not subject to arbitration.

The background of the case is as follows. Plaintiffs filed their putative class and collective action against the defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania wage and hour statutes. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to pay proper overtime compensation. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration clause in an Employment Dispute Resolution Program book that plaintiffs agreed to as a condition of employment. The clause provides that arbitration is “the only means of resolving employment related disputes.” However, the clause also states that it “covers only claims by individuals and does not cover class or collective actions.” The Pennsylvania district court read the clause as unambiguously carving out class and collective actions from mandatory arbitration and accordingly denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The defendants appealed to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit noted the question presented: “Does an arbitration clause stating that it ‘covers only claims by individuals and does not cover class or collective actions’ nonetheless require that a putative class and collective action for overtime pay be sent to arbitration?” The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Recognizing the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, the Court noted that policy has its limits, and the text of the arbitration clause controls. The Court then held the clause at issue “unmistakably provides that plaintiffs’ class and collective actions need not be subject to arbitration.”

Novosad v. Broomall Operating Company LP, No. 16-2089 (3d Cir. April 10, 2017).

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.