LexisNexis v. Crockett -- Sixth Circuit Performs A Gateway Analysis In Class Arbitration Controversy

by BakerHostetler

A Sixth Circuit panel has ruled that courts rather than arbitrators should determine whether class arbitration is authorized when the arbitration agreement “says nothing about classwide arbitration.” Citing First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 945 (1995), the Court was clear that an arbitrator can only decide “class arbitrability” “if the parties have authorized the arbitrator to answer that question.” Judge Raymond Kethledge, author of the opinion in Reid Elsevier, Inc. v. Crockett, (Case No. 12-3574), admitted there was less certainty as to the showing required to authorize an arbitrator to decide class arbitrability. Ultimately, the appellate court determined not only that courts should decide the “gateway issue” but also that the agreement did not provide for classwide arbitration.

The Background

LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier, provides on-line legal research services. In 2007 Craig Crockett and his former firm agreed to a LexisNexis Subscription Plan. Disputes arose over additional fees that were charged for using a database outside the Plan in Crockett’s initial and subsequent firms. The Plan contains an arbitration clause and in 2010 Crockett filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against LexisNexis on behalf of himself and two putative classes seeking damages in excess of $500 million. LexisNexis responded by suing Crockett in the Southern District of Ohio for a declaratory judgment that the Plan’s arbitration clause does not authorize class arbitration. The District Court, after surveying the relevant caselaw, granted summary judgment for LexisNexis on its declaratory claims. See opinion in Case No. 3:10cv248 decided February 24, 2012 by Judge Walter H. Rice.

The Appellate Analysis

Despite the plurality decision in Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 452 (2003), concluding that classwide arbitrability was only a “subsidiary question”, the Sixth Circuit found otherwise. The Court’s reasoning was based on four grounds: (1) arbitration’s purported benefits, including lower costs, greater efficiency and speed are much less assured in classwide arbitration giving reason to question the parties’ mutual consent to it; (2) confidentiality is more difficult in class arbitration “potentially frustrating the parties assumptions when they agreed to arbitrate”; (3) the stakes of class action arbitration are similar to those of class action litigation even though the scope of judicial review is more limited; and (4) there are due process concerns with respect to absent parties which can be better addressed in court. The panel concluded that “whether an arbitration agreement permits classwide arbitration is a gateway matter. . . reserved ‘for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakenly provide otherwise’”.

Next, the court found that Crockett could not make the required showing. “The principal reason to conclude that this arbitration clause does not authorize class arbitration is that the clause nowhere mentions it.” Turning to other agreement language, the court found the arbitration clause limited the scope to those claims “arising from or in connection with this Order”, not other customers’ orders. And, while the agreement does not expressly exclude class arbitration, it does not include it either. Indeed, Judge Kethledge reiterated that courts cannot infer implicit  agreement to class arbitration “solely from the fact of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate”, citing Stolt-Nielson S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp. 559 U.S. 662, 685 (2010).


The Sixth Circuit’s decision adds clarity to an area where some confusion previously existed – what is a “gateway” versus a “subsidiary” question? And, what language in the arbitration agreement can properly be equated with both authorization of the arbitrator to decide the issue and authorization of class arbitration?

In June, 2013 another Sixth Circuit panel wrote the unreported decision in Lowry v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 12-4222 (June 11, 2013). In Lowry the District Court had compelled arbitration of Lowry’s class action claims. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed an agreement which contained an express class action waiver:


But, Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr. found the question of class arbitrability still should be submitted to the arbitrator for resolution because of that agreement’s definition of controversies subject to arbitration as: “Any claim or dispute. . . including the interpretation and scope of this clause, and the arbitrability of the claim or dispute. . . .”

So, despite “an unambiguous class-action waiver, the provision requiring an arbitrator to resolve disputes about arbitrability does not exclude class claims”, said Judge Martin. Was this bad draftsmanship or a difference of opinion regarding Stolt-Nielsen? How many class waivers or clauses withdrawing class arbitrability from an arbitrator’s consideration were required? Now, the published decision in LexisNexis provides some definitive answers.

The Bottom Line: While not an employment case, the LexisNexis decision provides welcome guidance to employers. First, “classwide arbitrability” is a gateway issue. Second, an implicit agreement to arbitrate class claims cannot be inferred from the fact that the parties agreed to arbitrate. But, the greater use of explicit class action waivers in arbitration agreements may eventually render these issues moot.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.