\u3ci\u3eLewis\u3c/i\u3e\u27s Shifting \u3ci\u3eConcepcion\u3c/i\u3es: The Seventh Circuit\u27s Struggle in Applying Class Action Preemption in Employment Contracts

Class actions and arbitrations have has existed since the United States\u27 nascence. Since the mid-twentieth century, both Congress, through statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), and the Supreme Court, in interpreting such statutes as favoring arbitration, have fostered arbitration\u27s growth. While businesses incorporated arbitration provisions into various contracts thinking they would arbitrate with claimants individually, plaintiffs\u27 attorneys pushed for courts\u27 allowance of class arbitration, a class proceeding conducted within an arbitration\u27s confines. Corporations litigated class arbitrations\u27 legitimacy; their efforts culminated in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, where a divided Supreme Court upheld individual arbitration provisions in a pre-dispute contract, and foreclosed class arbitrations in many contexts. Even though Italian Colors\u27 plaintiffs could not functionally pursue their claims individually, the Court found that certain statutes interpreted as allowing class arbitration could not steamroll over other laws like the FAA. Now, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. seeks to distinguish itself from Italian Colors. In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit opined that the National Labor Relations Act-which expressly grants employees a right to collective suits-qualified as an exception to Italian Colors and to the FAA\u27s enforcement of arbitration provisions. Per the FAA\u27s savings clause, anything that proscribed such an express right was unenforceable. Lewis splits the circuits on this issue, and introduces an opportunity for Supreme Court resolution. This Note assesses the arguments advanced by various groups invested in Lewis\u27s issues, and urges the Court to uphold Lewis\u27s interpretation of the FAA over other Circuits\u27 competing analyses. It is this Note\u27s goal to highlight to its audience that, if the Supreme Court overturns Lewis\u27s holding, the class action mechanism, alongside individuals\u27 access to courts for civil harms, will continue its march toward extinction. Class actions and arbitrations have has existed since the United States\u27 nascence. Since the mid-twentieth century, both Congress, through statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), and the Supreme Court, in interpreting such statutes as favoring arbitration, have fostered arbitration\u27s growth. While businesses incorporated arbitration provisions into various contracts thinking they would arbitrate with claimants individually, plaintiffs\u27 attorneys pushed for courts\u27 allowance of class arbitration, a class proceeding conducted within an arbitration\u27s confines. Corporations litigated class arbitrations\u27 legitimacy; their efforts culminated in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, where a divided Supreme Court upheld individual arbitration provisions in a pre-dispute contract, and foreclosed class arbitrations in many contexts. Even though Italian Colors\u27 plaintiffs could not functionally pursue their claims individually, the Court found that certain statutes interpreted as allowing class arbitration could not steamroll over other laws like the FAA. Now, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. seeks to distinguish itself from Italian Colors. In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit opined that the National Labor Relations Act-which expressly grants employees a right to collective suits-qualified as an exception to Italian Colors and to the FAA\u27s enforcement of arbitration provisions. Per the FAA\u27s savings clause, anything that proscribed such an express right was unenforceable. Lewis splits the circuits on this issue, and introduces an opportunity for Supreme Court resolution. This Note assesses the arguments advanced by various groups invested in Lewis\u27s issues, and urges the Court to uphold Lewis\u27s interpretation of the FAA over other Circuits\u27 competing analyses. It is this Note\u27s goal to highlight to its audience that, if the Supreme Court overturns Lewis\u27s holding, the class action mechanism, alongside individuals\u27 access to courts for civil harms, will continue its march toward extinction. Class actions and arbitrations have has existed since the United States\u27 nascence. Since the mid-twentieth century, both Congress, through statutes like the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), and the Supreme Court, in interpreting such statutes as favoring arbitration, have fostered arbitration\u27s growth. While businesses incorporated arbitration provisions into various contracts thinking they would arbitrate with claimants individually, plaintiffs\u27 attorneys pushed for courts\u27 allowance of class arbitration, a class proceeding conducted within an arbitration\u27s confines. Corporations litigated class arbitrations\u27 legitimacy; their efforts culminated in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, where a divided Supreme Court upheld individual arbitration provisions in a pre-dispute contract, and foreclosed class arbitrations in many contexts. Even though Italian Colors\u27 plaintiffs could not functionally pursue their claims individually, the Court found that certain statutes interpreted as allowing class arbitration could not steamroll over other laws like the FAA. Now, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. seeks to distinguish itself from Italian Colors. In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit opined that the National Labor Relations Act-which expressly grants employees a right to collective suits-qualified as an exception to Italian Colors and to the FAA\u27s enforcement of arbitration provisions. Per the FAA\u27s savings clause, anything that proscribed such an express right was unenforceable. Lewis splits the circuits on this issue, and introduces an opportunity for Supreme Court resolution. This Note assesses the arguments advanced by various groups invested in Lewis\u27s issues, and urges the Court to uphold Lewis\u27s interpretation of the FAA over other Circuits\u27 competing analyses. It is this Note\u27s goal to highlight to its audience that, if the Supreme Court overturns Lewis\u27s holding, the class action mechanism, alongside individuals\u27 access to courts for civil harms, will continue its march toward extinction