Dive Brief:

• Ernst & Young (EY) is now the second employer in the past two weeks to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve confusion caused by a split between the federal appellate courts on the "legality of mandatory arbitration clauses that require employees to arbitrate disputes individually," according to Reuters.
• The circuit split began in May, but employers, trying to figure out just how to proceed, believe only the highest court can give them the legal right to bar class action effort by employees.
• EY's petition came on Thursday, three weeks after a split federal court panel decided that the company’s mandatory arbitration clause violated the National Labor Relations Act. The 9th Circuit majority’s logic was in line with a different court, the 7th Circuit, which ruled in May that Epic Systems’ individual arbitration requirement also improperly prohibited employees class action litigation, Reuters reports. Those two decisions are in contrast to decisions in three other federal courts, which ruled in favor of employers.

Dive Insight:

The entire issue is a legal quagmire right now, making it clear that the Supreme Court likely needs to step in and try and provide a definitive decision one way or the other.

EY believes its case is the best one for Supreme Court to review because the accounting firm's case involves the split among the circuits. Reuters reports that the very same EY mandatory arbitration provision ruled illegal by the 9th Circuit passed muster with the 2nd Circuit in a 2013 decision, which was then rendered invalid by the 9th Circuit in August.