2017 Supreme Court term

EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. JACOB LEWIS

Dockets 16-285Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

The Board's precedent holds that individual agreements requiring employees to waive their right to proceed collectively violate the National Labor Relations Act.

According to Justice Kagan, the case raises whether Title VII and Section 7 require employers not to interfere with concerted activity, including joint legal actions.

According to Academy of Arbitrators, the Academy of Arbitrators filed an amicus brief supporting the Board’s position that employees may proceed in joint collective representative actions.

Background and question before the Court

According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that the Court would hear argument in case 16-285 this term.

Justice Kagan asked whether Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination and Section 7’s protection of concerted activity require employers not to interfere with joint legal actions.

Justice Alito asked how to distinguish an agreement precluding class arbitration from other procedural rules limiting collective litigation.

According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired about confidentiality agreements that might limit how jointly the parties can proceed.

What each side argues

Petitioner (Epic Systems Corporation and co‑petitioners)

Petitioner argues that the Federal Arbitration Act is not a rule of statutory construction.

Respondents (Jacob Lewis, Stephen Morris, Murphy Oil USA, Inc.)

According to Mr. Ortiz, respondents argue that under Section 7, as long as joint legal action is available in one forum, that is sufficient.

What happened at oral argument

Richard D. Griffin, Esq., appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Daniel R. Ortiz, Esq., appeared on behalf of the respondents.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • a36f2c8de5b3aa7a9044-r1-ce3963c53a937f2b.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.