Access over 20 million homework & study documents
search

608601 blaw paper

Content type

User Generated

Rating

Showing Page:
1/5
Running head: EPIC SYSTEMS V. LEWIS CASE SUMMARY 1
Epic Systems v. Lewis Case Summary
Institution
Name
Date

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/5
EPIC SYSTEMS V. LEWIS CASE SUMMARY 2
Epic Systems v. Lewis Case Summary
Epic Systems Corporation is a healthcare data management company based in
Wisconsin. They had a mediation agreement that requires its workers to decide any business
based discussions with Epic through individual tact and to concede their privilege to
participate in or get advantage from any group, class, or representative methodology (Oyez,
2019). In February 2015, previous Epic representative Jacob Lewis sued Epic in government
court exclusively and in the interest of comparably similar workers and asserted that they had
been deprived of overtime compensation, therefore, infringing upon the1938 Fair Labor
Standards Act. Epic moved to excuse the objection and referred to their arbitration agreement
waiver clause (Oyez, 2019). Epic's motion was denied by the district court and said that the
waiver was unenforceable in light of the fact that it abused the privilege of workers to take
part in "concerted exercises" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section Seven.
The Supreme Court, through Justice Gorsuch in a 5-4 decision, held that arbitration
agreements enforcement must be written as instructed by the congress and that collective
action and class waivers are permissible in employment arbitration agreements as outlined by
NLRA.
The Court, at that point, dismissed every one of the contentions raised by the NLRB
and the individual workers. Initially, the Court held that the FAA's saving clause, which gives
that intervention understandings are hypothetically enforceable (Epps, 2018). Spare such
ground that exists at law or in value for the renouncement of the agreement does not offer
refuge for protections that apply just to the assertion or that get their significance from the
way consent to arbitrate has a problem. As such, on the grounds that this contention explicitly
singled out individualized discretion procedures as invalid, the "saving clause" (Epps, 2018)
was not involved, having no commonly appropriate contract defense to beat the assumption
of enforceability.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/5

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 5 pages?
Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running head: EPIC SYSTEMS V. LEWIS CASE SUMMARY Epic Systems v. Lewis Case Summary Institution Name Date 1 EPIC SYSTEMS V. LEWIS CASE SUMMARY 2 Epic Systems v. Lewis Case Summary Epic Systems Corporation is a healthcare data management company based in Wisconsin. They had a mediation agreement that requires its workers to decide any business based discussions with Epic through individual tact and to concede their privilege to participate in or get advantage from any group, class, or representative methodology (Oyez, 2019). In February 2015, previous Epic representative Jacob Lewis sued Epic in government court exclusively and in the interest of comparably similar workers and asserted that they had been deprived of overtime compensation, therefore, infringing upon the1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Epic moved to excuse the objection and referred to their arbitration agreement waiver clause (Oyez, 2019). Epic's motion was denied by the district court and said that the waiver was unenforceable in light of the fact that it abused the privilege of workers to take part in "concerted exercises" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section Seven. The Supreme Court, through Justice Gorsuch in a 5-4 decision, held that arbitration agreements enforcement must be written as instructed by the congress and that collective action and class waivers are permissible in employment arbitration agreements as outlined by NLRA. The Court, at that point, dismissed every one of the con ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4