Then, earlier this year, the Supreme Court expanded on its approach in Stolt-Nielsen. In Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, an individual filed class claims against his employer, a lighting fixture manufacturer. The district court ordered the parties to engage in individual and class arbitration. The manufacturer appealed, claiming that the arbitration agreement was silent as to class arbitrability and class arbitration was therefore not allowed under Stolt-Nielsen. The court of appeals affirmed the district court, holding that the arbitration agreement was ambiguous on the question of class arbitrability, and it employed a state law rule construing contractual ambiguities against the contract's drafter. The appeals court concluded that the manufacturer could have expressly resolved the ambiguity in drafting the agreement and, because it failed to do so, indicated its willingness to engage in class arbitration.