The district court upheld an arbitrator’s finding that employees seeking unpaid compensation could proceed in the arbitration as a class rather than on an individual basis. Hill v. Wackenhut Services Int’l, No. 11-2158 (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2013). Describing the circumstances as “an ironic twist,” the court noted that defendants were challenging the arbitrator’s decision just one year after the court had granted their prior motion to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate. Once in arbitration, plaintiffs appeared to concede that, under prevailing law, the language of the arbitration clause did not support class arbitration, but they argued that the doctrines of collateral and judicial estoppel precluded defendants from refusing to permit class arbitration because defendants had accepted class arbitration in a related arbitration proceeding involving other employees. The arbitrator concluded that the estoppels doctrines were incorporated into the parties’ agreement through its choice-of-law clause and ordered class arbitration to proceed. In denying defendants’ motion to vacate, the court found that the case was controlled by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) which requires a court to uphold the arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ arbitration clause even if the arbitrator’s analysis was erroneous, so long as the error does not rise to the level of a manifest disregard of the law.