The National Labor Relations Board on September 9 petitioned the Court for certiorari in NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. The lower court decision, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, found that an employment agreement with a provision for binding arbitration and a waiver of class or collective claims was enforceable and did not violate employees’ right to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. In addition to the Fifth Circuit, the Second and Eighth circuits have also rejected the Board’s position. The Seventh and Ninth circuits agree with the Board, and the employers in these cases have also sought review by the Supreme Court. The issue at stake is the degree of freedom that an employer and employee have to contract as they wish. The Federal Arbitration Act generally supports arbitration of all types of disputes unless “otherwise unlawful.” In the “pro-arbitration” cases, the courts have found that the FAA policy generally favoring arbitration should prevail. On the other hand, the Board and the “anti-arbitration” courts contend that waivers of class or collective claims in arbitration agreements violate the NLRA and therefore fit within the “otherwise unlawful” exception in the FAA. In other words, according to the “anti” side, the NLRA’s protection of concerted activity is not trumped by the FAA.