Two years after the Tenth Circuit ruled that courts — not arbitrators — must decide whether an arbitration agreement was ever formed, United Healthcare tried again. In Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc., No. 21-2051 (10th Cir. Apr. 11, 2022), the same appellate panel rejected the company's arguments for a second time, affirming the district court's finding that no enforceable arbitration agreement existed. Jack Siegel and Siegel Law Group continued to represent the workers on remand and through the second appeal, part of the firm's practice devoted to fighting for overtime rights in federal courts across the country.
Following the Tenth Circuit's 2020 decision in Fedor I, the case returned to the District of New Mexico before Judge Vázquez. The question was now squarely before the court: did United Healthcare ever form a binding arbitration agreement with these employees?
Judge Vázquez found that it did not — at least not as to the vast majority of plaintiffs. The 2016 arbitration policy had never been signed, read, or even known about by most of the Care Coordinators. The earlier policies from 2006, 2012, and 2015 were unenforceable because they contained illusory promises: the company reserved the right to change the terms at any time, which meant the agreement lacked the mutual consideration required for a valid contract. Only one plaintiff, Cindy Hays, was compelled to arbitrate because she had actually signed the 2016 policy upon being rehired.
United Healthcare appealed again.
On its second trip to the Tenth Circuit, United Healthcare raised a theory it had never presented to the district court. The company argued that by posting the 2016 policy on its corporate intranet, it had made an offer that employees accepted through their continued employment.
The Tenth Circuit was unpersuaded. Because United Healthcare had never raised the intranet-posting theory in district court proceedings and had not filed a cross-appeal, the argument was forfeited.
The court declined to consider the new theory, holding that a party cannot raise arguments on appeal that it failed to present to the trial court below.
The panel — again Judges Phillips, Baldock, and Eid — affirmed the district court's order in full. The workers' collective action would proceed in federal court.
The significance of Fedor II extends beyond the immediate case. Over two appeals spanning four years, one of the largest employers in the country tried every available argument to push overtime claims out of federal court and into private arbitration. It failed both times.
The combined result is a clear message from the Tenth Circuit: employers cannot manufacture consent to arbitration. They cannot enforce policies employees never signed, rely on agreements without real consideration, or introduce new legal theories for the first time on appeal. Workers who were denied overtime pay preserved their right to seek relief collectively in federal court — a forum with procedural protections, public accountability, and judicial oversight that private arbitration does not provide.
Forced arbitration clauses remain one of the biggest obstacles facing workers with legitimate wage claims. Siegel Law Group has filed more than 100 federal overtime cases and recovered over $100 million for workers,* and a core part of that work involves challenging arbitration agreements that should never have been enforced in the first place.
If your employer is requiring you to sign an arbitration agreement — or if you believe you have been denied overtime pay — contact Siegel Law Group for a free case evaluation. A short call or text is all it takes to find out whether you have a claim.
Search by company or industry to see overtime case activity.
Case information shown is from public court filings and approved settlements. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
