In recent years, the Supreme Court has put up roadblocks for workers who seek relief in court for wrongs committed by their employers. This development is a consequence of the Court’s arbitration jurisprudence. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a 2018 decision, was par for the course. The Supreme Court held that employers could prevent group wage-and-hour claims by enforcing individual arbitration agreements. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that their litigation activity was protected by labor law. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the application of the decision to Title VII pattern-or-practice cases. Indeed, Epic Systems puts potential Title VII plaintiffs in a bind. Class waivers in arbitration agreements prevent employees from banding together in group actions. But every circuit court to consider the question has determined that only a class—not an individual plaintiff—can litigate a claim of a pattern or practice of discrimination under Title VII. Taken together, the Supreme Court’s arbitration cases and the circuit courts’ Title VII jurisprudence would seem to eviscerate the pattern-or-practice suit.

In this Comment, I argue that Epic Systems does not reach all Title VII plaintiffs. First, I contend that some Title VII litigation is protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), notwithstanding Epic Systems. Congress gave Title VII plaintiffs the ability to obtain broad remedial relief to address discriminatory conditions, unlike in the wage-and-hour context. Like strikes or collective bargaining, litigation is one way that employees can reform the workplace. Then, I suggest that courts should borrow a test from securities law to evaluate whether a group of employees is sufficiently independent and cohesive to bring a pattern-or-practice case. Courts can give effect to the NLRA and Title VII without scrapping arbitration agreements entirely.

近年来，最高法院为那些因雇主犯下的错误而在法庭上寻求救济的工人设置了障碍。这种发展是法院仲裁判例的结果。Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis 是 2018 年的一项决定，是该课程的标准。最高法院认为，雇主可以通过执行个人仲裁协议来防止集体工资和工时索赔。它驳回了原告关于其诉讼活动受劳动法保护的论点。在异议中，Ruth Bader Ginsburg 法官质疑该决定对第七章模式或实践案件的适用性。事实上，Epic Systems 让潜在的 Title VII 原告陷入困境。仲裁协议中的集体豁免可防止员工在集体诉讼中联合起来。但是，每一个考虑这个问题的巡回法院都确定，只有一个集体——而不是单个原告——可以根据第七章对歧视模式或做法的索赔提起诉讼。总之，最高法院的仲裁案件和巡回法院的第七章判例似乎消除了模式或实践诉讼。

在本评论中，我认为 Epic Systems 并未涉及所有 Title VII 原告。首先，我认为，尽管有 Epic Systems，但某些 Title VII 诉讼受《国家劳动关系法》(NLRA) 的保护。与工资和工时不同，国会赋予第七章原告获得广泛救济以解决歧视性条件的能力。与罢工或集体谈判一样，诉讼是员工改革工作场所的一种方式。然后，我建议法院应该借用证券法的测试来评估一组员工是否足够独立和有凝聚力以提起模式或实践案件。法院可以在不完全取消仲裁协议的情况下使 NLRA 和第七章生效。