Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: Supreme Court Says a Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement is Enforceable


June 26, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is enforceable. Although not an employment case, the decision likely signals that an employee's waiver of the right to bring a class action will be enforceable if included in an employment agreement that requires arbitration to settle any employment-related dispute. American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133 (June 20, 2013). A copy of the opinion is available here.

What does this decision mean for employers?

  • For employers with arbitration agreements that provide for a class action waiver, an arbitration agreement is likely enforceable to prevent a class action either in court (an employer can compel arbitration) or in the arbitration (a "single claim" arbitration). However, a savvy employer would be wise to have the agreement reviewed in light of the decision.
  • For employers without arbitration agreements, or with arbitration agreements that are silent on the class action waiver, employers may want to evaluate having an arbitration agreement or revising an existing agreement to be explicit in its waiver of class action status.
  • In either event, proceed with caution because:
    • We can expect some legislative initiative to limit the potential impact of the decision;
    • The Supreme Court vote was 5-3 (Justice Sotomayor recused herself); thus, the situation could change with the change of one justice;
    • We continue to await the outcome of D.R. Horton. As you will recall, the NLRB in that case found that an employer violated employees' Section 7 rights when the employer required its employees to waive class action rights. A more detailed discussion of the NLRB's decision in D.R. Horton is available below.

Detailed Discussion

The Supreme Court was considering a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that had invalidated a waiver of class action rights in an arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit relied upon a court-created exception to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") called the "effective vindication" exception. That exception is based on the view that, given the high cost of pursuing some individual federal statutory claims when compared to the potential recovery (such as in an individual overtime claim), a class action waiver prevents effective vindication of the statutory violation.

The Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court held that the FAA does not permit such court-created reasoning to overrule a contract between the parties. The Court referred to its recent opinion in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012), emphasizing that courts "must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, even for claims alleging a violation of a federal statute, unless the FAA's mandate has been overridden by a contrary congressional command."

The majority held that the "effective vindication" exception to the FAA did not apply. According to the Court, the effective vindication exception would apply to "an arbitration agreement forbidding the assertion of certain statutory rights" and "would perhaps cover filing and administrative fees attached to arbitration that are so high as to make the forum impracticable." However, the "fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy," in the Court's view, did "not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue the statutory that remedy."

Also of note, the Court held that "[c]ongressional approval of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 [the class action mechanism for use in courts] does not establish an entitlement to class proceedings for the vindication of statutory rights."

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.