March 14 (Reuters) - Whether employees waive their rights to bring class actions when they enter into employment agreements with arbitration clauses is an unsettled question.

But on Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit came down on the side of employers, upholding Tenet Healthcare Corp's employment agreement that requires employees to arbitrate their disputes with the company instead of litigating them in court.

Janice Quilloin, a nurse at one of Tenet's 55 hospitals, sued in 2009 on behalf of a class of hospital employees who claim they were denied pay for work performed during their meal breaks.

Tenet asked the trial judge to force Quilloin to resolve the dispute individually in arbitration, as required by the company's "Fair Treatment Process," which Quilloin signed twice. Quilloin argued that the agreement was grossly unfair, and that she never knew she had to commit to arbitration to work at the company.

The trial judge denied the company's request, finding that the agreement might be unconscionable. But the 3rd Circuit disagreed, sending the parties to arbitration.

"Quilloin did not lack a meaningful choice. She had a college degree, and chose to agree to the arbitration agreement on more than one occasion," Judge Michael Fisher wrote for the three-judge panel.

The Supreme Court injected uncertainty into employment class actions with its landmark ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which allowed companies to enforce arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. The Supreme Court struck down a California law that barred class action waivers in customer agreements, finding that federal arbitration law trumped the conflicting state law.

But Concepcion was not an employment case. What's more, it involved state law rather than the federal labor law that gives rise to most employment class actions, including Quilloin's. Courts have been less sure about what to do when an employment agreement pits two federal statutes - the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Federal Arbitration Act - against each other.

In January, the National Labor Relations Board found a class action waiver in an employment contract unenforceable because it took away workers' rights under federal labor law.

The 3rd Circuit punted on the question of conflicting federal laws, said Wendy Lazerson, an employment lawyer at Bingham McCutchen who's not involved in the case.

"The court seemed determined to get to a certain result without analyzing all the issues," Lazerson said.

The 3rd Circuit ignored the fact that some of the claims were brought under the federal labor statute, instead focusing on a Pennsylvania law that deems class action waivers unconscionable. The Federal Arbitration Act trumps the Pennsylvania law under Concepcion, the 3rd Circuit panel ruled.

Lawyers for Quilloin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Tenet did not immediately provide comment.

The case is Quilloin v. Tenet Healthsystem Philadelphia et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, No. 11-1393.

For Quilloin: Gary Lynch of Carlson Lynch and Gerald Wells of Faruqi & Faruqi.

For Tenet: James Boudreau of Greenberg Traurig.

(Reporting By Terry Baynes)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal