On November 24, 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P. that a signed acknowledgment form stating that the terms of an employee handbook were merely guidelines nullified any implied agreement to be contractually bound by the handbook's terms, including its arbitration provision. The court also found that the deadline to seek permission to appeal a class certification ruling could not be extended based on rules that accommodate the time needed to effect service. ( (4th Cir. Nov. 24, 2015)).

Rose Lorenzo filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a North Carolina labor statute alleging that her former employer, Prime Communications (Prime), incorrectly calculated her commissions and bonuses and failed to pay her overtime pay. The district court certified Lorenzo's FLSA claims as a collective action and her state wage and hour claims as a class action. The court also denied Prime's motion to compel arbitration, which Prime predicated on the fact that Lorenzo had received an employee handbook with an arbitration provision and continued to work for Prime after receiving it. Prime appealed both rulings.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court explained that the resolution of this issue required determining whether the parties entered into a contract to commit employment disputes to arbitration, which in turn is resolved by application of state contract law. Here, while Lorenzo did receive an employee handbook containing an arbitration provision, she also signed an acknowledgment form which explicitly stated that the terms of the handbook were guidelines that did not create any binding contractual commitments. Therefore, the express agreement not to be bound by the handbook's terms nullified any implied consent that might have been created by receiving and reviewing the handbook and continued employment with Prime. As a result, the court ruled Prime had failed to produce evidence demonstrating that Lorenzo agreed to arbitrate any of her claims and affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration.

The Fourth Circuit also dismissed as untimely Prime's petition for permission to appeal class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(f). Prime argued that it permissibly filed its petition three days after the 14-day window prescribed by FRCP 23(f) because FRCP 6(d) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 26(c) extend deadlines in specified circumstances to accommodate the time needed to effect service. However, the court explained that these rules only apply when service of documents by an opposing party triggers the deadline and do not apply to filing deadlines following entry of court orders. Because FRCP 23(f) provides for a 14-day filing deadline which runs once the original order on certification is entered, the rules extending certain deadlines based on service did not apply. Accordingly, the court dismissed Prime's petition to appeal as untimely.