Class-Action Arbitration Cannot Be Compelled Absent Evidence of Consent — Supplemental Material, as appeared in ABAJuly 22, 2010
Stuart Gerson, a Member of the Litigation and Health Care and Life Sciences practices, in the Washington, DC, and New York offices, and Evan Spelfogel, a Member of the Firm in the Labor and Employment practice in the New York office, cowrote an article titled "Class-Action Arbitration Cannot Be Compelled Absent Evidence of Consent — Supplemental Material."
Following is an excerpt:
On April 27, 2010, a divided U.S. Supreme Court (5-3, with Sotomayor, J., recused) held that the Federal Arbitration
Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. ("FAA"), does not permit forcing unwilling parties to participate in a class arbitration to which they have not consented. This is a case of potentially great significance to entities whose contractual relationships include arbitration provisions and that generally oppose class-action treatment of cases against them—particularly employers of all kinds, but also health care providers and financial services companies, among others. Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., No. 08-1198, 559 U.S. _____ (2010).
Reprinted with permission from the American Law Institute.