Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson
Issues
Can a party be bound by an arbitration clause to arbitrate, rather than litigate, the validity of the arbitration clause?
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
Is the district court required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this "gateway" issue to the arbitrator for decision?
Respondent Antonio Jackson was an employee of Petitioner Rent-A-Center West, Inc. (“RAC”). See Jackson v. Rent-A-Center West, Inc., 581 F.3d 912, 914 (9th Cir. 2009). While employed by RAC, Jackson was repeatedly passed over for promotion until he complained to his store manager and human resources. See Jackson v.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Wex: Law about Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Wex: Law about Employment discrimination
- PrawfsBlawg: Allocating power between courts and arbitrators—and why scholars of federal courts should care