Case at a glance

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, on appeal from the District of New Mexico (No. 1:17-cv-00013)
• Case: Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc., No. 21-2051 (order and judgment)
• Panel: Judges Phillips, Baldock and Eid
• Workers: Salaried Care Coordinators at UnitedHealthcare
• Claims: Unpaid overtime under the FLSA
• Ruling: Affirmed that no enforceable arbitration agreement existed for the workers who never signed the 2016 policy (Apr. 11, 2022, unpublished)
• Our role: Siegel Law Group was lead counsel

Part of our New Mexico care coordinator cases →

Tenth Circuit Affirms: United Healthcare Cannot Force Workers Into Arbitration Under Unsigned Policy

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), a Tenth Circuit 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.

What Happened After the First Appeal

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.

The Ruling: New Arguments Come Too Late

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 — Judges Phillips, Baldock, and Eid — affirmed the district court's order in full. It was not the same panel that decided the 2020 appeal; Judge Eid is the one judge who sat on both. The workers' collective action would proceed in federal court.

A Second Defeat for Forced Arbitration

Fedor II is an unpublished Order and Judgment that states on its face that it is not binding precedent, so it resolved this appeal rather than setting a rule other courts must follow. 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 in this case, within that limit, is that 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.

Fighting for Your Right to a Day in Court

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 obtained 50+ class and collective certifications, 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.

Did you do this job somewhere else? Tell us about it.

If you did this kind of work for another employer and weren't paid overtime for hours over 40, tell us your job title, your employer and the state you worked in. We'll tell you plainly whether we think you have a case. Federal law makes it illegal to retaliate against you for asking.

Tell us about it →

About Siegel Law Group

Siegel Law Group PLLC concentrates in unpaid overtime cases under the FLSA and state wage laws. The firm has filed more than 100 federal overtime cases, obtained 50+ class and collective certifications in 20 federal judicial districts across 15 states, and recovered more than $100 million for workers. It has never represented an employer in a wage case. Free consultation. Contingency fee: we advance case costs, and they are repaid from any recovery. No recovery, no fee and no costs. Phone: (214) 790-4454 | Email: [email protected]

These are results in other people's cases. Every case depends on its own facts and law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website contains attorney advertising.

Attorney responsible: Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas.