Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-03041/USCOURTS-ca7-16-03041-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sandra Riederer
Appellee
United Healthcare Services, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 10, 2016*

Decided November 14, 2016

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16-3041

SANDRA RIEDERER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for 

the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin.

No. 15-C-1292

William C. Griesbach, 

Chief Judge.

Order

Sandra Riederer brought this suit as a class action on behalf of persons 

employed by United Healthcare, which asked the district court to refer the 

proceeding to a series of arbitrations, one for each employee. The district court 

denied this motion, observing that Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th 

 * We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly 

aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Case: 16-3041 Document: 22 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16-3041 Page 2

Cir. 2016), held invalid a contractual waiver of employees’ opportunity to 

proceed collectively. United immediately appealed on the authority of 9 U.S.C. 

§16(a). It concedes that Lewis is dispositive but contends that it is wrongly 

decided and asks us to overrule it. Yet Lewis was circulated before release to all 

active judges under Circuit Rule 40(e), and none favored a hearing en banc. 

There is an entrenched conflict among the circuits on the question in Lewis, and 

this court’s reconsideration could not spare the Supreme Court the need to 

resolve the conflict. Multiple petitions for certiorari in cases presenting this 

question are pending before the Supreme Court. That is the right forum for 

United’s arguments.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-3041 Document: 22 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pages: 2