An arbitrator, not a court, must decide whether more than 700 JetBlue pilots can collectively arbitrate a salary dispute with their employer, a state appellate panel has ruled, rejecting the budget airline’s argument that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds, 130 S.Ct. 1758, precludes collective arbitration when it is not explicitly allowed by a contract.

In Stolt-Nielsen, the Supreme Court ruled that an arbitration agreement could not be assumed to allow class arbitration unless it did so explicitly. The Court said it reached its conclusion “because class-action arbitration changes the nature of arbitration to such a degree that it cannot be presumed the parties consented to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes to an arbitrator.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]