The Supreme Court's recent decisions interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in the employment context generally prioritize arbitration over workers’ labor law rights. The majority in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis upheld mandatory individual employment arbitration agreements despite their conflict with the labor law right to act in concert. The same majority in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela rejected a state law interpretation of a contract provision to find that parties to an employment contract intend individual arbitration absent reference to group arbitration. A unanimous Court in New Prime v. Oliveira interpreted the FAA to include independent contractors under the transportation worker exemption, reinvigorating the battle over what it means to be engaged in interstate commerce to qualify for the exemption. These decisions resolved some disputes about the breadth of the FAA, but other questions remain. In the wake of Epic Systems and Lamps Plus, state courts and legislatures are testing the boundaries of the FAA's saving clause, with limited success. Confidentiality provisions, frequently associated with arbitration agreements, may unlawfully interfere with employees’ federal labor law rights. This article recommends that Congress amend the FAA to address these issues by excluding all workers engaged in interstate commerce, not just transportation workers, because the Court has strayed far from the original intent of the Act—to enforce commercial agreements in which the parties had equal bargaining power. State legislation also should provide guidance on what makes arbitration voluntary and fair, and provide a choice to employees on collective action, forum, and confidentiality.

中文翻译：

---

在Epic Systems，New Prime和Lamps Plus之后进行强制仲裁的新战役和战场

最高法院最近在就业方面对《联邦仲裁法》（FAA）做出解释的裁决通常优先考虑仲裁，而不是工人的劳动法权利。尽管Epic Systems Corporation诉Lewis一案与劳动法的一致行动权相抵触，但大多数人还是维持了强制性的个人雇佣仲裁协议。在Lamps Plus，Inc.诉Varela案中，同一多数人拒绝了州法律对合同条款的解释，以认定雇佣合同的当事方打算进行个人仲裁，而没有提及集体仲裁。在新总理诉奥利维拉案中，法院获得一致通过解释说，FAA将独立承包商包括在运输工人豁免之下，从而使从事州际商业资格获得豁免的争斗重新焕发了活力。这些决定解决了有关FAA广度的一些争议，但还有其他问题。在Epic Systems和Lamps Plus之后，州法院和立法机关正在测试FAA储蓄条款的界限，但成效有限。经常与仲裁协议相关的保密条款可能会非法干扰雇员的联邦劳动法权利。本文建议国会修改FAA，以排除所有从事州际贸易的工人，而不仅仅是运输工人，以解决这些问题，因为法院偏离了该法案的初衷，即执行当事双方平等的商业协议议价能力。国家法律还应就如何使仲裁具有自愿性和公正性提供指导，并在集体诉讼，论坛和保密性方面为雇员提供选择。