In Class Action Defense Win, Supreme Court Holds that Class Arbitration Barred in Absence of Express Consent

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela that an ambiguous arbitration agreement does not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that parties agreed to class arbitration. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision that the arbitration agreement between Lamps Plus and one of its employees permitted pursuing class claims in arbitration despite the fact that the arbitration agreement did not expressly address the issue of class arbitration. This is a follow-up to an earlier post where we discussed the District Court’s ruling in this case.

By way of background, the case stemmed from a dispute regarding whether an employer properly protected the tax information of its nearly 1300 employees. After a fraudulent tax return was filed in the name of one of the employees, the employee filed suit against his employer, Lamps Plus. Lamps Plus responded by seeking to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration provision in the employee’s employment contract. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corporation, which bars arbitrating claims on a class basis in the absence of a “contractual basis for concluding” that the parties agreed to class arbitration, Lamps Plus sought to compel the employee to arbitrate on an individual basis. The District Court ruled in favor of Lamps Plus on the request to dismiss the case and compel arbitration but rejected the employer’s request to require the employee to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, applying the doctrine of contra proferentem doctrine, which requires construing contractual ambiguities against the drafter—in this case Lamps Plus. The Ninth Circuit distinguished the case from Stolt-Nielsen by pointing out that in Stolt-Nielsen, the parties had stipulated that the arbitration agreement was silent about class arbitration but the parties in Lamps Plus had not made a similar stipulation. Thus, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, the Supreme Court’s holding in Stolt-Nielsen only applied to situations where the arbitration agreement was silent on the issue of class arbitration but did not address situations where the language of the agreement was ambiguous on the issue.

The Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to distinguish the two cases. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that “[u]nder the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.” The Supreme Court began by explaining that in cases involving a conflict between the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and a state law doctrine, the FAA will prevail. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the FAA’s principle “that arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion” conflicted with the state law doctrine of contra proferentem. Citing Stolt-Nielsen, the Supreme Court held that the state law doctrine must give way to the FAA.

The Supreme Court buttressed it holding by examining the “crucial differences” between individual and class arbitration, many of which played into the decision in Stolt-Nielsen. Unlike arbitration on an individual basis which offers advantages such as “lower costs, greater efficiency and speed, and the ability to choose expert adjudicators to resolve specialized disputes,” the court reasoned, class arbitration is likely to result in higher costs and a “procedural morass.” Accordingly and building on the holding in Stolt-Nielsen, the majority wrote that “neither silence nor ambiguity provides a sufficient basis for concluding that parties to an arbitration agreement agreed to undermine the central benefits of arbitration itself.”

The court’s full opinion is available here.

Our Naperville, Illinois business and class action defense law firm handles individual and class action gift card, data breach, privacy rights, deceptive advertising, predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law, and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totaling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer lawyers at Lubin Austermuehle are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations to obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers’ rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Geneva and Aurora consumer attorneys provide assistance in data breach, privacy violation, fair debt collection, consumer fraud, and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases our Chicago consumer lawyers have handled. You can contact one of our Skokie and Waukegan consumer protection attorneys who can assist in consumer fraud, consumer rip-off, lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here. You can also call our toll-free number at (833) 306-4933.