reliance on AT & T Technologies v. Comm’s Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986), is also misplaced. In AT & T, the Supreme Court said that arbitration clauses do not cover disputes when there is a “clear, unambiguous exclusion” from arbitration of particular issues. Id. at 647, 106 S.Ct. 1415 (internal quotations omitted). But such examples are rare, and when courts have found them, they are explicit. See, e.g., United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 583, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960) (identifying contract language that said, “matters which are strictly a function of management shall not be subject to arbitration,” as a clear exclusion); State of N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 90 F.3d 58, 61 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Where express exclusions are
holding that the district court did not err by compelling individual rather than class arbitration because the relevant agreements were silent as to class arbitration holding that the court has no independent authority to compel arbitration of a class claim recognizing the immunity of counties unless an action is authorized by the legislature holding the contract was not authorized by law recognizing an exclusion that stated a claim by the state that the nation is conducting a class iii gaming activity not authorized by this compact is not subject to mandatory arbitration