The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that a dispute about what fees each party to an ongoing arbitration is required to pay is a matter for the arbitrator, not a court, to determine.
Twitter Inc., now known as X Corp., fired several of its employees. Those employees initiated arbitration with JAMS pursuant to dispute resolution agreements (DRAs) they signed agreeing to arbitrate any employment disputes they had with Twitter. A dispute developed regarding the payment of arbitral fees. Twitter argued that the fees should be allocated between the parties. JAMS and the employees believed Twitter was required to pay all fees except for the case initiation fees. Twitter refused to pay and JAMS therefore refused to appoint an arbitrator. The employees asked the Southern District of New York to conclude that Twitter was failing, neglecting, or refusing to arbitrate by refusing to pay the fees. The district court ordered Twitter to pay the fees.
The Second Circuit vacated and remanded. It concluded that “whether a party has failed to pay arbitration fees in an ongoing arbitral proceeding is a procedural issue entrusted to the arbitrator or arbitral body — not the court.” Put differently, “once the parties are before their chosen arbitral body, refusal to pay ongoing fees alone is not a ‘failure, neglect, or refusal ... to arbitrate’ that a district court is empowered to remedy.” The Second Circuit explained that district courts are not authorized to resolve procedural issues internal to arbitration and that questions about whether a party has paid required fees is such a procedural issue.
Frazier v. X Corp., No. 24-1948 (2d Cir. Sept. 2, 2025).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
