This morning, a divided Supreme Court again reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California on the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in an employment discrimination dispute. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, No. 09-497 (6/21/10). This arbitration dispute centered on whether the court or the arbitrator should determine the arbitrability of the dispute when the arbitration agreement itself provided that an arbitrator should resolve any such controversy over arbitrability. In particular, as Justice Scalia put it, whether under the Federal Arbitration Act, "a district court may decide a claim that an arbitration agreement is unconscionable, where the agreement explicitly assigns that decision to the arbitrator." The Court held that the question of arbitrability is for the arbitrator to decide when the challenge goes to the validity of the entire agreement as a whole or when the agreement clearly and unmistakably empowers the arbitrator to decide arbitrability, but is for the trial court to decide when the challenge goes only to the enforceability of the arbitration clause and there is no clear and unmistakable waiver of the trial court jurisdiction.
According to the Court's opinion, the employer moved to compel arbitration after the plaintiff former employee filed a § 1981 employment discrimination suit in federal court based on the arbitration which the plaintiff had signed. The Agreement provided for arbitration of all "past, present or future" disputes arising out of [the plaintiff's] employment . . . , including claims" for employment discrimination. The arbitration clause also provided that "[t]he Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable." The plaintiff attempted to avoid the arbitration agreement by arguing that it was unconscionable (in that the parties were required to split the arbitration fees and limits were placed on discovery), but the employer asserted that such a challenge was for the arbitrator to decide. The trial court agreed with the employer, but noted that he did not think the agreement was substantively unconscionable merely because the parties were required to split the arbitration fees. A divided Ninth Circuit Court concluded that the trial court was required to determine unconscionability, but agreed that the clause was not unconscionable merely because of the fee splitting provision. A divided Supreme Court reversed.
The FAA provides that arbitration clauses must be enforced just like any other contracts. Nonetheless, unless the parties clearly and unmistakenly provided otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is for the court and not the arbitrator. "The validity of a written agreement to arbitrate (whether it is legally binding, as opposed to whether it was in fact agreed to—including, of course, whether it was void for unconscionability) is governed by §2'sprovision that it shall be valid "save upon such grounds as exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract." Justice Scalia found it irrelevant that prior cases examining the arbitrability question involved agreements where the substantive provisions concerned subjects other than arbitration (such as check-cashing, consulting, talent management, etc), unlike this case where the "contract as a whole" involved only arbitration of any future disputes.
There are two types of validity challenges under §2: "One type challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to arbitrate," and "[t]he other challenges the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly affects the entire agreement (e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced), or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract's provisions renders the whole contract invalid." Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 444 (2006). In a line of cases neither party has asked us to overrule, we held that only the first type of challenge is relevant to a court's determination whether the arbitration agreement at issue is enforceable. See Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395, 403–404 (1967) . . . That is because §2 states that a "written provision" "to settle by arbitration a controversy" is "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" without mention of the validity of the contract in which it is contained. Thus, a party's challenge to another provision of the contract, or to the contract as a whole, does not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate. "[A]s a matter of substantive federal arbitration law, an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract." . . . . But that agreements to arbitrate are severable does not mean that they are unassailable. If a party challenges the validity under §2 of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that agreement under §4 [employer parties to seek enforcement of arbitration clauses in federal court].
Nonetheless, Justice Scalia found it irrelevant that prior cases examining the arbitrability question involved agreements where the substantive provisions concerned subjects other than arbitration (such as check-cashing, consulting, talent management, etc) and merely also contained an arbitration clause, unlike this case where the "contract as a whole" involved only the arbitration of any future disputes. Instead, he found that the plaintiff could only prevail in obtaining the trial court's examination of the arbitrability of the dispute if he had challenged only the delegation clause – which empowered the arbitrator to decide arbitrability – instead of attacking the unconscionability of the arbitration contract as a whole:
It may be that had [the plaintiff] challenged the delegation provision by arguing that these common procedures as applied to the delegation provision rendered that provision unconscionable, the challenge should have been considered by the court. To make such a claim based on the discovery procedures, [the plaintiff] would have had to argue that the limitation upon the number of depositions causes the arbitration of his claim that the Agreement is unenforceable to be unconscionable. That would be, of course, a much more difficult argument to sustain than the argument that the same limitation renders arbitration of his fact bound employment-discrimination claim unconscionable. Likewise, the unfairness of the fee-splitting arrangement may be more difficult to establish for the arbitration of enforceability than for arbitration of more complex and fact-related aspects of the alleged employment discrimination. [Plaintiff], however, did not make any arguments specific to the delegation provision; he argued that the fee-sharing and discovery procedures rendered the entire Agreement invalid.
The Court refused to address an additional argument made by the Plaintiff because he failed to raise it below: that the quid pro quo for the delegation provision failed because of the Supreme Court's decision in Hall Street Associates LLC v. Mattel, Inc. entered after he signed the agreement. He claimed that he had agreed to the clause delegating arbitrability to the arbitrator in exchange for the employer's agreement that the arbitration decision would be subject to substantive judicial review (when the FAA and state laws generally provide that courts will only overturn an arbitration decision for fraud, corruption, etc.). However, his consideration for agreeing to the delegation failed when the Hall Court held that parties cannot agree by contract to alter the exclusive judicial review of arbitration decisions provided by the FAA. The Court found that he could have filed a supplemental brief with the Ninth Circuit on this issue following the Hall Court decision, but that it might have been pointless because that was already the rule in the Ninth Circuit even before the Hall decision.
In light of this decision, one can expect that employers across the country will – and even should – amend their arbitration agreements to reserve the question of arbitrability for the arbitrator in the hopes of avoiding long and expensive battles over the enforcement of an arbitration clause or agreement.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
