United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1812 MARY RODGERS-ROUZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN QUEEN STEAMBOAT OPERATING COMPANY, LLC and HMS GLOBAL MARITIME LLC, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division. No. 4:20-cv-00004 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2024 — DECIDED JUNE 18, 2024 ____________________

Before ROVNER, BRENNAN, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Mary Rodgers-Rouzier alleges that she and her coworkers who entertained guests on steamboat cruises were denied overtime payment to which they were en- titled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Over one hundred of her coworkers filed consent forms to join her proposed col- lective action. Meanwhile, their employer, American Queen Steamboat Operating Company, moved to dismiss the case 2 No. 23-1812 for improper venue because Rodgers-Rouzier had agreed to arbitration. The arbitration agreement and American Queen’s motion invoked the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) exclu- sively, and the district court denied the motion on those terms. American Queen then moved again to dismiss based on the arbitration agreement, this time invoking Indiana state law. The district court granted this motion, over Rodgers- Rouzier’s objections that American Queen had waived its ar- gument and the court lacked authority to apply Indiana law in this context. The court further determined that all the work- ers who had filed consent forms were not parties to the action. We reverse. Although we conclude American Queen’s ar- guments are not waived and the court had authority to en- force the arbitration agreement under Indiana law just as an Indiana court would, we believe that Indiana law would hold American Queen to its bargain that its arbitration agreement was governed by the FAA. Rodgers-Rouzier’s case may there- fore continue in federal court. We do not decide now whether it may do so as a collective action and leave that question for further litigation. 1 I. Rodgers-Rouzier worked as a bartender on steamboats operated by American Queen. She alleged that she and her coworkers were wrongly denied overtime wages. While

1 On February 21, 2024, American Queen and its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of Texas. The bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay for purposes of this appeal on April 15, 2024, but it di- rected that if the case resulted in a favorable decision for Rodgers-Rouzier and the other employees, then they could pursue their claims only in the bankruptcy proceedings. No. 23-1812 3 working for American Queen, she signed an arbitration agree- ment as a condition of her continued employment. The parties represent that her coworkers entered similar, but not neces- sarily identical, agreements at various times during their own employment with American Queen. The agreement is only three short pages, split into six sec- tions, several of which are relevant to this appeal. Section one contains the main agreement that the parties will settle all claims arising out of Rodgers-Rouzier’s employment exclu- sively by binding arbitration, except for certain claims related to unemployment benefits, worker’s compensation, and labor relations. The procedures for the arbitration are specified in section two, which provides that the arbitration “shall be con- ducted under the rules and procedures of the American Arbi- tration Association, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Ser- vi