When a large employer tries to force workers into private arbitration under an agreement they never signed, who decides whether that agreement exists in the first place? In Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc., 976 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2020), the Tenth Circuit answered that question clearly: a court does. The decision reversed a district court order that had sent overtime claims to arbitration and established an important protection for employees across the circuit. Jack Siegel and Siegel Law Group represented the workers throughout the case, drawing on the firm's record of more than 100 federal overtime cases filed and over $100 million recovered for workers.*
Dana Fedor and other Care Coordinators at United Healthcare filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the District of New Mexico, alleging they had been misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay. United Healthcare responded by moving to compel arbitration under its employee arbitration policy.
The problem was that the policy had gone through multiple versions. Earlier iterations from 2006, 2012, and 2015 each contained unilateral amendment clauses — meaning the company could change the terms at any time without the employees' consent. Then in 2016, United Healthcare rolled out a new version that included a delegation clause, a provision that would send even threshold disputes about the agreement's enforceability to an arbitrator rather than a judge. The workers never signed the 2016 policy.
The district court nevertheless compelled arbitration, reasoning that because the plaintiffs had not specifically challenged the delegation clause, the question of whether any valid agreement existed had to go to an arbitrator.
The Tenth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court's order. Writing for a unanimous panel of Judges Phillips, Baldock, and Eid, Judge Eid held that the threshold question of whether an arbitration agreement was ever formed must always be decided by a court — regardless of any delegation clause embedded in the document.
"A delegation clause cannot be severed from an agreement that does not exist."
The logic was straightforward. A delegation clause is part of an arbitration agreement. If no agreement was formed — because the employee never signed it, never consented to it, never received adequate consideration for it — then the delegation clause shares the same fate. You cannot bootstrap an arbitrator's authority from a document that has no binding force.
This was a question of first impression in the Tenth Circuit, and the ruling carries significant implications for workers nationwide. Employers have increasingly relied on delegation clauses to route even the most basic challenges — including whether an agreement exists at all — away from courts and into arbitration, a forum that statistically favors corporate defendants.
The Tenth Circuit drew a firm line. Employees cannot be stripped of their right to a judicial forum based on a policy they never agreed to. The decision aligns with basic principles of contract law: before you can enforce any provision of a contract, you first need a contract.
For workers who believe they have been misclassified and denied overtime, the right to bring claims in federal court — and to do so collectively alongside coworkers — is often the difference between pursuing a case and walking away. Forced arbitration, especially under agreements employees never signed, undermines that access.
If you are a salaried employee who has been denied overtime pay, you may have a claim under the FLSA. Siegel Law Group offers free, confidential case evaluations. Reach out by call or text to discuss your situation — initial conversations are brief and straightforward, and there is no cost unless we recover for you.
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.
