Federal Arbitration Act

Issues

In 2000, Hall Street Associates filed suit seeking declaratory relief and damages from Mattel, Inc. for its failure to indemnify Hall Street for the cost of cleaning up water contamination at a toy manufacturing facility Mattel leased from Hall Street. After litigation began, the parties agreed to arbitrate some of the issues in dispute. They signed an agreement allowing either party to appeal the arbitrator's decision in court if it contained errors of law or unsubstantiated findings of fact. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit ruled in a separate case that any arbitration provisions giving courts more review power than that granted to them in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) were invalid. Since the provisions of the arbitration agreement between Hall Street and Mattel went beyond those in the FAA, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the District Court's decision to review the arbitrator's findings according to the parties' provisions. At issue here is whether the FAA provides the sole grounds for judicial review of arbitration awards. Hall Street maintains that it is consistent with the spirit of the FAA and in the best interests of encouraging arbitration for courts to recognize all grounds for judicial review agreed upon by the parties, whether or not they go beyond those contained in the FAA. Mattel's position is that the best way to preserve the integrity of arbitration proceedings is to limit the review power of courts to the grounds contained in the FAA. Because the Supreme Court's decision in this case will affect the amount of freedom disputing parties have in crafting their arbitration agreements, ultimately it may affect whether parties choose to undergo the arbitration process at all.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether an arbitration agreement that incorporates the American Arbitration Association’s (“AAA”) rules delegates the question of arbitrability to the arbitrators, in light of an express exclusion clause for injunctive relief, where the plaintiff sought both damages and injunctive relief. The arbitration agreement at issue in this case includes a “carve-out” provision excluding from arbitration any claims seeking injunctive relief. Rule 7(A) of the AAA’s rules states that the arbitrator has the power to rule on the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim. Petitioner Henry Schein, Inc. argues that the incorporation of the AAA rules “clearly and unmistakably” delegates all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that, because some issues are delegated to the arbitrator, the presumption of arbitrability should be read to delegate to the arbitrator the question of the application of the exclusion clause. On the other hand, Respondent Archer and White Sales, Inc. contends that the question of arbitrability should remain for the court to decide because of the explicit carve-out exemption. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for the efficiency and fairness of dispute resolution.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide how courts should treat agreements delegating gateway questions of arbitrability to arbitrators—questions of whether an arbitrator has the authority to hear a case. Henry Schein, Inc. (“Henry Schein”) argues that, to honor such an agreement, the court must allow the arbitrator to decide gateway questions of arbitrability, even if the case clearly belongs in the court.  In support of their argument, Henry Schein contends that under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), courts must allow arbitrators to decide the merits of claims delegated to arbitrators by contract, even if the merits are not arguable. Archer and White Sales, Inc. (“Archer and White”) counters that if a claim to arbitrability is “wholly groundless,” the court does not have to make the arbitrator evaluate the claim. Archer and White assert that the FAA does not ask courts to compel arbitration when plaintiffs file claims where they clearly belong—in court. From a policy perspective, this case asks the Court to balance the FAA’s strong policy in favor of arbitration with the need to protect the parties to an arbitration clause from arbitration proceedings they did not agree to.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Court must consider whether federal law preempts state law regarding arbitration clauses in powers-of-attorneys. Kindred Nursing Centers argues that state law, which requires principals to explicitly authorize an agent to enter into arbitration agreements, violates the Federal Arbitration Act. Contrarily, Janis E. Clark and Beverly Wellner argue that state law governs contract formation and that state law requires powers-of-attorneys to adhere to the expressed intentions of the principal in a contract. The case will determine whether powers-of-attorney must explicitly grant the agent the power to bind the grantor to an arbitration agreement and may impact elder care and estate planning practices across the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Lamps Plus, Inc. (“Lamps Plus”) and Frank Varela (“Varela”) executed an arbitration agreement which contained a clause waiving Varela’s right to sue his employer or institute any other civil action or proceeding concerning his employment at Lamps Plus. After a data breach caused by an internet phishing incident, Varela sued Lamps Plus alleging negligence, breach of contract, and invasion of privacy. Lamps Plus moved to compel arbitration of Varela’s individual claims, but the district court decided to dismiss Varela’s claims without prejudice and to compel class arbitration of the claims. Lamps Plus appealed, arguing that, as the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires a contractual basis showing the parties’ intent to arbitrate class actions, the court could not read in an agreement to class arbitration based on language relating to personal disputes. Further, the company argues that even if the agreement is ambiguous as to that intent, Supreme Court precedent indicates that courts must resolve such ambiguity in favor of arbitration. Varela counters that issues of jurisdiction and standing prevent the Supreme Court from deciding this case and that, even if the Court were to examine the case on the merits, California contract-law interpretive principles used by the lower court were neutral, applied properly, and, thus, permissible. The Supreme Court’s decision has implications for the employment sector and will likely influence the decision of employers to expressly exclude class actions from future arbitration agreements to maintain the efficiency and informality of arbitration.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to determine whether a dispute over the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) Section 1 exemption is an arbitrable issue pursuant to a valid delegation clause. Additionally, the Court has the opportunity to decide whether the Section 1 exemption for contracts of employment includes, as a matter of law, independent contractor agreements. Section 1 of the FAA carves out an exception from the Act’s applicability for contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, and other classes of workers engaged in interstate commerce. New Prime argues that the delegation clause covers threshold disputes such as the applicability of the FAA and that the phrase “contract of employment” does not include independent contractor agreements. Oliveira counters that courts must first determine the applicability of the FAA before requiring arbitration and also that the ordinary meaning of “contracts of employment” at the time the FAA was enacted included independent contractor agreements. The Supreme Court’s decision has implications for the trucking industry and will likely influence whether this industry will continue to resort to arbitration to resolve disputes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Over a decade ago, Petitioner Oxford Health Plans, LLC (Oxford) agreed to pay Respondent Dr. Ivan Sutter for providing medical services to members of Oxford’s managed care network. Their contract contains a broad arbitration clause which prohibits litigation of their disputes in court and instead requires that they arbitrate their disputes. In 2002, Sutter complained that Oxford failed to pay him and other primary health care providers for medical services. After an arbitrator decided that their contract clause allowed “class arbitration,” or the consideration of an arbitration claim on behalf of a group of similar claims, Oxford went to federal court to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his power to arbitrate. Both the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Oxford’s motion to vacate and instead upheld the arbitrator’s decision to hear Sutter’s claim in class arbitration. Oxford argues that the arbitrator’s decision for class arbitration must be vacated because Oxford and Sutter never agreed to class arbitration in their contract exchanging medical services for compensation. In contrast, Sutter argues that the Court should uphold the award because the arbitrator acted within his powers and based his decision on the terms of the agreement between the parties. Oxford warns that a holding for Sutter would discourage parties from agreeing to arbitration to avoid the risk of being saddled with the costs of class arbitration. In contrast, Sutter argues that a holding for Oxford would encourage parties to challenge arbitration decisions in court, undermining the purpose of arbitration to avoid the costs of litigation, and effectively prevent individuals from pursuing their small claims by robbing them of the opportunity to present their claims as a group rather than individually.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In 2002, Arnold Preston, a lawyer, and Judge Alex Ferrer entered into a contract where Preston agreed to act as Ferrer's personal manager in exchange for a portion of the earnings from a potential television deal. The contract contained a clause which required that any disputes over the validity of the contract be arbitrated. Several years later, Preston filed an action with the American Arbitration Association against Ferrer, seeking earnings which he claims are owed under that contract. Ferrer claims that the entire contract is invalid under the California Talent Agencies Act, and also contends that under that act, the parties must exhaust their administrative remedies by submitting the dispute to the California Labor Commissionerbefore an arbitrator or court can hear the case. The California Court of Appeals agreed with Ferrer. Preston challenges this holding, claiming that that the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006), which held that when there is an arbitration agreement disputes over the validity of a contract must first be submitted to an arbitrator, require this dispute to be first submitted to arbitration. Arbitration agreements are found in many contracts, and this decision could have a significant impact on the enforceability of such clauses and on the States' ability to regulate certain industries and agreements.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Respondent Antonio Jackson was an employee of Petitioner Rent-A-Center West, Inc. (“RAC”). Jackson sued RAC, alleging racial discrimination. Because Jackson had signed an arbitration clause as part of his employment contract, RAC asked the court to refer the case to arbitration. Jackson, however, argued the employment contract was unconscionable and therefore invalid. The arbitration clause contains a provision that only an arbitrator can decide validity. Jackson argues that a court must decide the validity of the arbitration clause before requiring arbitration. RAC argues that the parties agreed in the contract to submit this question to arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held that, when a party attacks the validity of an arbitration clause because of unconscionability, a court must decide its validity. The Supreme Court’s decision will influence how arbitration clauses will function in the future and the degree of court involvement in arbitration agreements.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The case would have asked the Court to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorizes federal district courts to compel discovery for use in a private international arbitration.  Petitioner Servotronics argued that a tribunal in a private international arbitration is a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of Section 1782(a) and thus that the district court should have ordered discovery. In response, Rolls-Royce and Boeing argued that the language of Section 1782(a) only denotes a tribunal with authority derived from a sovereign, not a contract between private parties. The Court’s decision in this case would have affected the availability and efficiency of discovery in private international arbitrations and specified the extent of acceptable federal court involvement in private international arbitrations.  The U.S. Supreme Court removed this case from its oral argument schedule on September 8, 2021, following Servotronics’ motion to dismiss.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources