ARTICLE
2 June 2026

District Court Should Have Enforced Individualized Arbitration Agreements

PR
Proskauer Rose LLP

Contributor

The world’s leading organizations and global players choose Proskauer to represent them when they need it the most. Our top tier team of star trial attorneys, acclaimed transactional lawyers and exceptionally talented partners and associates have earned a reputation for the relentless pursuit of perfection and a dauntless pursuit of success.
A Ninth Circuit decision examines whether district courts can invalidate arbitration agreements based on prior arbitration rulings involving different parties, addressing the tension between individual arbitration proceedings and the Federal Arbitration Act's mandate to enforce arbitration agreements.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Proskauer Rose LLP are most popular:
  • within Insurance topic(s)

O’Dell v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 171 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. 2026)

This case arose from unpaid wage claims brought by former employees of Aya Healthcare, a travel‑nursing agency. The district court initially compelled four cases to individual arbitrations without ruling on the enforceability of the agreement because the agreement contained a delegation clause which provided that an arbitrator would decide the validity of the agreement. The results in arbitration were split: two arbitrators upheld the arbitration agreements while two struck them down. When Aya later sought to enforce the same arbitration agreement against different employees, the district court disregarded the valid delegation clause in the agreement and issued its own ruling on the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. In doing so, the district court relied exclusively on the unfavorable arbitration rulings—giving them preclusive effect while refusing to enforce the agreement for over 250 other former employees. The Ninth Circuit reversed.

The court emphasized that the district court’s approach clashed with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which strongly favors enforcing arbitration agreements. Nothing in the FAA allows courts to invalidate such agreements based on how individual arbitrators rule in separate proceedings involving different parties. By treating a handful of arbitration decisions as binding on hundreds of other parties and claims, the district court effectively transformed an individual arbitration proceeding into a de facto class action without the parties’ consent. That approach, the Ninth Circuit made clear, is fundamentally incompatible with the FAA because it suggests “the sort of ‘judicial hostility to arbitration’ that the FAA was enacted to prevent.” See also Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 2026 WL 1228477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026) (employee hired through placement agency was not required to arbitrate claims against direct employer, which was not a party to the arbitration agreement).

District Court Should Have Enforced Individualized Arbitration Agreements

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More