## Facts

- Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc. (Ryan’s) required job applicants to sign an arbitration agreement as part of the application packet; refusal ended the application process.
- The arbitration agreement was framed as a contract between the applicant/employee and Employment Dispute Services, Inc. (EDSI) (also described as Dispute Services), a company that administered an arbitration program for multiple employers.
- The agreement recited that Ryan’s had paid EDSI to arbitrate and resolve employment-related disputes between Ryan’s and its employees.
- Ryan’s paid substantial fees to EDSI, amounting to roughly 42% of EDSI’s gross income.
- Under the EDSI program, disputes were decided by a three-adjudicator panel selected from three pools: (1) supervisors from participating employers, (2) employees from participating employers, and (3) outside attorneys, retired judges, and other legal professionals not connected to the employers.
- Participating employers selected which supervisors and employees would be placed into the first two pools.
- EDSI imposed no minimum qualifications for employee adjudicators (no education or experience requirements) and no requirement that those adjudicators be unbiased.
- Erric Walker and other hourly employees sued Ryan’s under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging Ryan’s failed to pay minimum wage and overtime.
- Ryan’s moved to dismiss or stay the case and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) based on the signed EDSI arbitration agreement.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it did not provide employees a fair chance to pursue their FLSA rights; Ryan’s appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FAA required enforcement of the EDSI arbitration agreement to compel arbitration of the employees’ FLSA wage-and-hour claims.
2. Whether the design of the EDSI arbitration program (including employer control over adjudicator pools and EDSI’s financial dependence on participating employers) made the agreement unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Ryan’s motion to compel arbitration.
- The court held the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the EDSI program was structured in a manner that favored employers and did not provide the neutral decisionmaking process required for employees to pursue statutory rights.
- Because the agreement was invalid under ordinary contract defenses, the FAA did not require the employees’ FLSA claims to be sent to arbitration, and the action could proceed in federal court.

## Legal Principles

- The FAA favors enforcement of arbitration agreements, but it does not require enforcement of an arbitration clause that is invalid under generally applicable state-law contract defenses.
- Courts may refuse to compel arbitration when the arbitral forum is not meaningfully neutral—such as where the provider’s finances and selection rules create a strong incentive to favor one side.
- Unconscionability can render an arbitration agreement unenforceable, including where the agreement is imposed as a nonnegotiable condition of employment and the process is materially one-sided.
- Statutory employment claims (including FLSA claims) may be arbitrated only if the arbitration process provides a fair opportunity to pursue the statutory remedy; an arrangement that materially compromises fairness may be rejected.

## Conclusion

In Walker v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, the Sixth Circuit held that Ryan’s mandatory arbitration arrangement administered by EDSI was unenforceable because its panel-selection rules and provider economics tilted the process toward employers, preventing employees from fairly pursuing FLSA wage-and-hour remedies; accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of Ryan’s request to compel arbitration and allowed the FLSA case to proceed in court.


Walker v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, 400 F.3d 370 (2005)