• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


The Not-So-Effective Vindication Decision

0
by Beth Graham

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013


Tweet

Professor Linda S. Mullenix, Morris & Rita Atlas Chair in Advocacy at the University of Texas School of Law, has published, The Practice: The Not-So-Effective Vindication Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in Italian Colors and Its Aftermath Are a Big Blow to Class Action Bar, National Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 30, September 2013; U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 517.  In her article, Professor Mullenix discusses the far-reaching effect of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Express Corp. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, et al.

Here is the abstract:

This article provides commentary on the Supreme Court’s decision relating to classwide waivers in arbitration clauses in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, and immediate reception of the Court’s decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In one of the most closely-watched classwide arbitration cases on the 2012-13 docket, the Supreme Court in Italian Colors Restaurant was asked whether the “effective vindication rule” required access to class arbitration in federal antitrust litigation where an individual plaintiff’s claim was too small to be litigated separately. In a 5-3 decision (with Justice Sotomayor not participating) a divided Court ? led by its conservative wing ? responded with a resounding “no.”

The Court’s majority in Italian Colors advanced the conservatives’ harsh approach to classwide arbitration and represented a resounding setback for the plaintiffs’ class action bar. Critics immediately attacked the decision as a pro-corporate, anti-plaintiff, anti-class action, denial-of-access-to-justice, ideologically-based decision. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.

Merely six weeks after issuance of the Italian Colors decision, the Second Circuit applied and extended the Italian Colors holdings to litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FSLA”). Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2013 WL 4033844 (2d Cir. Aug. 9, 2013). The Second Circuit concluded that the Italian Colors decision abrogated the district court’s previous basis for invalidating a class action waiver provision in an arbitration clause promulgated by Ernst & Young. The Second Circuit therefore concluded that the district court had erred in denying Ernst & Young’s motion to compel arbitration.

The Sutherland decision is significant because it heralds the Second Circuit’s recognition of the Italian Colors repudiation of class action waivers, as well as the evisceration of the “effective vindication rule,” which that Circuit previously had championed in several decisions. In addition, the Sutherland decision extends the Italian Color principles from Rule 23 antitrust class actions to FSLA wages and overtime litigation. By extending the Italian Colors holdings to FSLA litigation, the Sutherland decision embodies a further encroachment on plaintiffs’ access to classwide arbitration.

The full text of this and other articles authored by Professor Mullenix are available for download from the Social Science Research Network.

Related Posts

  • Oral Argument Transcripts Now Available for Amex v. Italian Colors RestaurantOral Argument Transcripts Now Available for Amex v. Italian Colors Restaurant
  • SCOTUS to Consider Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration AgreementsSCOTUS to Consider Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements
  • The Court’s 2012 Class Act: A Little Bit of This, a Little Bit of ThatThe Court’s 2012 Class Act: A Little Bit of This, a Little Bit of That
  • Supreme Court Upholds Agreement That Bans Class Arbitration Despite CostsSupreme Court Upholds Agreement That Bans Class Arbitration Despite Costs
  • Arbitrating Antitrust Claims, Class Action Waivers and the ‘Effective Vindication’ RuleArbitrating Antitrust Claims, Class Action Waivers and the ‘Effective Vindication’ Rule
  • ‘Sticky’ Arbitration Clauses?: The Use of Arbitration Clauses after Concepcion and Amex‘Sticky’ Arbitration Clauses?: The Use of Arbitration Clauses after Concepcion and Amex

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy