Henry Schein Redux – The Appeals Court Decides “The Placement of the Carve-Out is Dispositive”

By Mark Kantor

Kantor Photo (8-2012)You may recall that the US Supreme Court last term in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc. rejected a “wholly groundless” exception to its general principles allocating arbitrability issues between court and arbitrator (the First Options rule that “Unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator.”).  The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit issued its new opinion in that case (Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 16-41674, Aug. 14, 2019, available on TDM at https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/legal-and-regulatory-detail.asp?key=22906, subscription required).  In that opinion, the Appeals Court concluded that the arbitration clause in question did not clearly and unmistakably allocate the relevant question to the arbitrators.  The Court then held that, based on the exclusion for “actions seeking injunctive relief” from arbitration under the relevant clause, the dispute in question was not arbitrable.  As explained more fully below, the appeals court relied on contract interpretation principles to reach this result.  The court thereby emphasized the importance of precise drafting of the arbitration clause and any exceptions – “the placement of the carve-out here is dispositive.”

The underlying court proceeding brought by Archer and White Sales, Inc. is an antitrust complaint against Henry Schein, Inc. and others relating to alleged anticompetitive agreements entered into among the defendants with respect to sales of dental equipment.  Complainant Archer and White Sales “alleges violations of federal and Texas antitrust law and seeks money damages and injunctive relief.”  The defendants argued that an exclusion in the relevant arbitration clause of “actions seeking injunctive relief” operated to prevent arbitrability of the dispute.

The arbitration clause in the underlying contract reads as follows (emphasis added):

Disputes. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina.  Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property of Pelton & Crane), shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association [(AAA)].  The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Under AAA Commercial Arbitration  Rule 7(a), “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.”  However, the Fifth Circuit interpreted this arbitration clause in the agreement to exclude actions seeking injunctive relief from arbitration.  By doing so, the parties, said the appeals court, had placed the relevant dispute entirely outside the AAA arbitration rules.  Thus, Rule 7(a) did not come into play, and the parties had not clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability of an action seeking injunctive relief to the arbitrator.

Finding that the exclusion in the arbitration clause was itself clear, the Court of Appeals itself then determined that the dispute was not arbitrable because the court claims sought injunctive relief in addition to damages.

The decision of the Fifth Circuit avoids reconsidering the issue raised by amicus and discussed by Justice Ginsburg in her separate Supreme Court opinion – do provisions in arbitration rules such AAA Rule 7(a) in fact constitute a clear and unmistakable delegation of arbitrability decisions to the arbitrator.  As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in footnote 11, “While both parties read the tea leaves in the questions asked by the Justices at oral argument, attempting to shepherd them to support their own positions, the Court declined to decide whether this agreement in fact delegated the arbitrability question.”

In the Fifth Circuit, precedent holds that an arbitration rule such as AAA Rule 7(a) satisfies the First Options test; “As we held in [Petrofac, Inc. v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 687 F.3d 671, 675 (5th Cir. 2012)], an arbitration agreement that incorporates the AAA Rules “presents clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.””  That issue, as to which the ALI Restatement of The U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration takes the contrary position, therefore remains the subject of a circuit split among Circuit Courts of Appeals in the US to be resolved in the future by the US Supreme Court.

The manner in which the Fifth Circuit judges reached this conclusion is particularly relevant to patent licensing disputes, where the parties to a patent license agreement or similar IP agreement often provide for arbitration but contractually exclude patent validity, infringement and similar disputes from arbitration.

The Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Patrick Higginbotham writing for a unanimous court) began its analysis in the customary two-step fashion, asking first if there is any arbitration agreement at all and thereafter considering whether “this claim is covered by the arbitration agreement” (footnotes omitted here and elsewhere).

We review a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration de novo.  Our inquiry proceeds in two steps.  The first is a matter of contract formation—“whether the parties entered into any arbitration agreement at all.”  Next we turn to the question of contract interpretation and ask whether “this claim is covered by the arbitration agreement.”

Judge Higginbotham then restated the well-known First Options “clearly and unmistakably” formulation for allocating the second question between court and arbitrator.

While ordinarily both steps are questions for the court, the parties can enter into an arbitration agreement that delegates to the arbitrator the power to decide whether a particular claim is arbitrable. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that “parties can agree to arbitrate ‘gateway’ questions of ‘arbitrability,’ such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.”

When considering whether there was a valid delegation, “the court’s analysis is limited.” As always, we ask if the parties entered into a valid agreement. If they did, we turn to the delegation clause and ask “whether the purported delegation clause is in fact a delegation clause—that is, if it evinces an intent to have the arbitrator decide whether a given claim must be arbitrated.”  When determining that intent, “[c]ourts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence that they did so.” If there is a valid delegation, the court must grant the motion to compel.

Here, the disputing parties had agreed that a valid arbitration agreement existed, leaving only the second step for consideration – was the particular claim covered by that agreement.  Archer and White argued that decision was for the courts to make.

Archer asserts that the AAA rules (and resulting delegation) only apply to disputes that fall outside of the arbitration clause’s carve-out for actions seeking injunctive relief. Under their reading, if a case falls within the carve-out, the agreement does not incorporate the AAA rules and the gateway arbitrability question is not delegated to an arbitrator.

Henry Schein argued in response that, by operation of AAA Commercial Arbitration Rule 7(a), the parties had expressly delegated that issue to the arbitrator.

[D]efendants argue that the agreement’s incorporation of the AAA rules ends the inquiry.  They maintain that the carve-out for actions seeking injunctive relief does not trump the parties’ delegation.  Defendants warn that to read the contract as Archer suggests would require the court to make a merits determination about the scope of the carve-out—whether this is indeed an action seeing injunctive relief—to answer the delegation question, precisely the category of inquiries a court is precluded from making in answering the delegation question.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with claimant Archer and White, holding that the “plain language” of the arbitration clause did not incorporate the AAA rules for disputes “under the carve-out”.

that is precisely the point—the placement of the carve-out here is dispositive. We cannot re-write the words of the contract. The most natural reading of the arbitration clause at issue here states that any dispute, except actions seeking injunctive relief, shall be resolved in arbitration in accordance with the AAA rules. The plain language incorporates the AAA rules—and therefore delegates arbitrability—for all disputes except those under the carve-out.  Given that carve-out, we cannot say that the Dealer Agreement evinces a “clear and unmistakable” intent to delegate arbitrability.

The appellate court then considered whether the “backdrop of a strong presumption in favor of arbitration” would result in referring the dispute to arbitration.  But the language of the exclusion in the arbitration clause, said the judges, was clear.  Moreover, the court noted that the clause excluded “actions seeking injunctive relief,” not “actions seeking only injunctive relief.”  The appellate court therefore refused to compel arbitration, even of only the claim for damages.

We note first that the arbitration clause creates a carve-out for “actions seeking injunctive relief.” It does not limit the exclusion to “actions seeking only injunctive relief,” nor “actions for injunction in aid of an arbitrator’s award.” Nor does it limit the carve-out to claims for injunctive relief. Such readings find no footing within the four corners of the contract. Under North Carolina law, “[w]hen the language of a contract is clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to its terms, and the court, under the guise of construction, cannot reject what the parties inserted or insert what the parties elected to omit.” The mere fact that the arbitration clause permits Archer to avoid arbitration by adding a claim for injunctive relief does not change the clause’s plain meaning. “While ambiguities in the language of the agreement should be resolved in favor of arbitration, we do not override the clear intent of the parties, or reach a result inconsistent with the plain text of the contract, simply because the policy favoring arbitration is implicated.” Fundamentally, defendants ask us to rewrite the unambiguous arbitration clause. We cannot.

It is noteworthy that the appeals court did not consider severing Archer and White’s remedial request for injunctive relief from its remedial request for damages, which might have resulted in sending the latter to arbitration but keeping the former in court.

The appellate panel’s decision in Henry Schein is of particular importance to intellectual property practitioners.  It is common in the marketplace for patent licensing and similar agreements to contain arbitration clauses.  However, those clauses often expressly exclude from arbitration a dispute for example, “concerning the validity, scope, infringement and essentiality of a patent or a patent claim.”  Moreover, it is extremely common in all sorts of contracts for an arbitration clause to include as well an express authorization for a disputing party to seek injunctive relief from the courts.

Thus, the Fifth Circuit has previously compelled arbitration of the scope question in another precedent, Crawford Professional Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249, 256 (5th Cir. 2014), under  an arbitration clause stating inter alia “nothing in the arbitration provision “shall prevent either party from seeking injunctive relief for breach of th[e Agreement.”

In the Ninth Circuit, though, the appeals court there has concluded that the scope of arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide under an arbitration clause providing that “all” disputes arising out of or relating to the subject license agreement were to be arbitrated, and then containing a carve-out for certain IP and licensing claims.

The Ninth Circuit considered a similar agreement in Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Group A.G.  The arbitration clause adopted arbitration rules delegating arbitrability issues to the arbitrator and contained a carve-out for certain intellectual property and licensing claims.  Because the claims carved-out by that agreement “ar[ose] out of or relat[ed] to” the Source License, and the agreement explicitly provided that any claim arising out of the Source License was subject to arbitration, the Ninth Circuit held that Oracle’s carve-out argument “conflate[ed] the scope of the arbitration clause . . . with the question of who decides arbitrability.30

****

30.  ****  The court noted that the issue with Oracle’s carve-out argument was that the two categories of exempted claims by definition were claims arising out of or relating to the Source License, which were explicitly subject to arbitration. Id. at 1076.  No such circularity exists in the contract at issue here.

Where, though, the meaning of a carve-out clause is ambiguous, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has previously allocated to the courts the scope question in NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc. v. UBS Securities, LLC, 770 F.3d 1010 (2d Cir. 2014).

the parties in NASDAQ had not clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability “where a broad arbitration clause is subject to a qualifying provision that at least arguably covers the present dispute.”  Because there was ambiguity as to whether the parties intended to have arbitrability questions decided by an arbitrator—because the dispute arguably fell within the carve-out—the court held the arbitrability question was for the court to decide.

These varying precedents emphasize the point made by the Fifth Circuit in Henry Schein that the parties must take care in the drafting of their exclusionary clauses; “But that is precisely the point—the placement of the carve-out here is dispositive.  We cannot re-write the words of the contract.”

_______________________________________________

Mark Kantor is a CPR Distinguished Neutral. Until he retired from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Mark was a partner in the Corporate and Project Finance Groups of the Firm. He currently serves as an arbitrator and mediator. He teaches as an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (Recipient, Fahy Award for Outstanding Adjunct Professor). Additionally, Mr. Kantor is Editor-in-Chief of the online journal Transnational Dispute Management.

This material was first published on OGEMID, the Oil Gas Energy Mining Infrastructure and Investment Disputes discussion group sponsored by the on-line journal Transnational Dispute Management (TDM, at https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/), and is republished with consent.

CMS Finalizes Rule on Nursing Home Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements

By Mark Kantor

Kantor Photo (8-2012)

You will recall the controversy during the Obama Administration over the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements by nursing homes.  Last week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finalized a revised rule (the 2019 Final Rule) removing the prohibition in the 2016 Rule on pre-dispute arbitration agreements for long-term healthcare facilities but keeping provisions from the 2016 rule “banning facilities from requiring that residents sign arbitration agreements as a condition of admission to a facility” and “specifying that a resident’s right to continue to receive care at the facility must not be contingent upon signing an arbitration agreement.”

Many thanks to Beth Graham and Karl Bayer’s Disputing Blog for following these developments – see www.disputingblog.com/cms-issues-final-rule-allowing-pre-dispute-nursing-home-arbitration-agreements/ .

As M-and-A participants will recall, CMS promulgated a rule in October 2016 barring long-term care facilities (e.g., nursing homes) from Medicare and Medicaid programs unless the facility gave up provisions requiring pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements between LTC facilities and their residents.  The 2016 Rule:

“prohibit[ed] LTC facilities from entering into pre- dispute, binding arbitration agreements with any resident or his or her representative, or requiring that a resident sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of admission to the LTC facility. It also required that an agreement for post-dispute binding arbitration be entered into by the resident voluntarily, that the parties agree on the selection of a neutral arbitrator, and that the arbitral venue be convenient to both parties. The arbitration agreement could be signed by another individual only if allowed by the relevant state’s law, if all of the other requirements in this section were met, and if that individual had no interest in the facility. In addition, a resident’s right to continue to receive care at the facility post-dispute could not be contingent upon the resident or his or her representative signing an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement could not contain any language that prohibited or discouraged the resident or anyone else from communicating with federal, state, or local officials, including but not limited to, federal and state surveyors, other federal and state health department employees, and representatives of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. In addition, when a LTC facility and a resident resolved a dispute through arbitration, a copy of the signed agreement for binding arbitration and the arbitrator’s final decision was required to be retained by the facility for 5 years and be available for inspection upon request by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) or its designee.

The 2016 Rule was preliminarily enjoined nationwide by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in November 2016 as a result of litigation brought by the American Health Care Association and a group of affiliated nursing homes.  Promptly thereafter, CMS issued an instruction calling for non-enforcement of the 2016 Rule’s pre-dispute arbitration agreement provisions.  In 2017, the new Trump Administration issued proposed revisions to the 2016 Rule.  CMS sought public comment on the 2017 proposed rule, receiving over 1,000 comments including many from groups that advocate for the rights of older adults, residents in nursing homes or people with disabilities, as well as State Offices of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman.

Last week, CMS finalized and issued a revised 2019 Final Rule at 84 Fed. Reg. 34718 (July 18, 2019, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-18/pdf/2019-14945.pdf), making some changes to its proposed revised rule but retaining the removal of the core prohibition on pre-dispute arbitration agreements for long-term healthcare facilities.  Significantly, the final rule keeps important provisions from the 2016 Rule “banning facilities from requiring that residents sign arbitration agreements as a condition of admission to a facility” or “specifying that a resident’s right to continue to receive care at the facility must not be contingent upon signing an arbitration agreement.”  The 2019 Final Rule also modifies in some respects the transparency requirements offered in the 2017 proposed rule.  The CMS short summary of the Final Rule states as follows.

We have reviewed all of the comments received and considered the concerns raised by all stakeholders. As a result, we have made some revisions to the proposed rule in response to public comments. Specifically, as discussed in detail below, we are finalizing our proposals to remove the requirement at § 483.70(n)(1) precluding facilities from entering into pre-dispute, binding agreements for binding arbitration with any resident or his or her representative, and the provisions at § 483.70(n)(2)(ii) regarding the terms of arbitration agreements. We are not finalizing the proposed removal of the provision at § 483.70(n)(2)(iii) banning facilities from requiring that residents sign arbitration agreements as a condition of admission to a facility. Therefore, facilities will continue to be prohibited from requiring any resident or his or her representative to sign an agreement for binding arbitration as a condition of admission to the facility. In addition, to address commenters’ concerns that facilities may still coerce or intimidate the resident and his or her representative into signing the agreement, the facility must explicitly inform the resident or his or her representative that signing the agreement is not a condition of admission and ensure that this language is also in the agreement. We are finalizing provisions requiring that arbitration agreements be in a form and manner that the resident understands. However, we are not finalizing the proposed transparency related provisions that the facility must ensure that the agreement for binding arbitration is in ‘‘plain language’’ and that the facility post a notice regarding the use of agreements for binding arbitration in an area that is visible to residents and visitors. We are not finalizing the proposed removal of the provision specifying that a resident’s right to continue to receive care at the facility must not be contingent upon signing an arbitration agreement. Finally, based on comments, we are adding a requirement that facilities grant to residents a 30 calendar day period during which they may rescind their agreement to an arbitration agreement.

The full revised Final Rule can be found here – https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-18/pdf/2019-14945.pdf.  It will be interesting to see if the nursing home industry opposes this Rule as well, in reliance on the reasoning of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.  Whether or not there is a potential conflict between Epic Systems and CMS’ 2019 Final Rule, the industry may simply believe it has won enough in the political battle to step away from the legal battle.

_______________________________________________

Mark Kantor is a CPR Distinguished Neutral. Until he retired from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Mark was a partner in the Corporate and Project Finance Groups of the Firm. He currently serves as an arbitrator and mediator. He teaches as an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (Recipient, Fahy Award for Outstanding Adjunct Professor). Additionally, Mr. Kantor is Editor-in-Chief of the online journal Transnational Dispute Management.

This material was first published on OGEMID, the Oil Gas Energy Mining Infrastructure and Investment Disputes discussion group sponsored by the on-line journal Transnational Dispute Management (TDM, at https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/), and is republished with consent.

US Sup Ct Grants Review to Decide Whether New York Convention Permits Non-Signatory to Compel International Arbitration on Equitable Estoppel Grounds

By Mark Kantor

Kantor Photo (8-2012)

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear in its next Term the international arbitration case of GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC (Docket No. 18-1048, case documents available at https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ge-energy-power-conversion-france-sas-v-outokumpu-stainless-usa-llc/).  The dispute addresses whether, under the New York Convention, a non-signatory can compel arbitration.  The Question Presented is:

Whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards permits a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

As described in GE’s petition for cert, “Sometimes, a signatory to a contract may sue a non-signatory for claims that arise out of the contract.  When that happens, is the signatory bound by the arbitration clause it agreed to in the contract?  For domestic arbitration agreements, the answer is yes: Equitable estoppel allows the non-signatory to enforce the arbitration clause.  But the Eleventh Circuit [Court of Appeals] held that a non-signatory cannot compel arbitration if one of the parties is a foreign entity.  That erroneous holding deepens a 2-to-2 circuit split and warrants this Court’s review.”

Readers will note that GE’s quoted description of the issue speaks confusingly about both (i) a signatory compelling arbitration with a non-signatory and (ii) a non-signatory compelling arbitration with a signatory.  One hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will be able to distinguish the two situations and determine whether that distinction is relevant to resolving the question.  The 11th Circuit decision declining to compel arbitration rested in part on the non-US nature of one of the parties.

We shall learn within the next year how the U.S. Supreme Court believes non-signatories fit into the commercial arbitration universe.

_______________________________________________

Mark Kantor is a CPR Distinguished Neutral. Until he retired from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Mark was a partner in the Corporate and Project Finance Groups of the Firm. He currently serves as an arbitrator and mediator. He teaches as an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (Recipient, Fahy Award for Outstanding Adjunct Professor). Additionally, Mr. Kantor is Editor-in-Chief of the online journal Transnational Dispute Management.

This material was first published on OGEMID, the Oil Gas Energy Mining Infrastructure and Investment Disputes discussion group sponsored by the on-line journal Transnational Dispute Management (TDM, at https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/), and is republished with consent.

UPDATED/No Class: Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit On State Law Over FAA

By Echo K.X. Wang and Russ Bleemer

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning re-affirmed that if parties want class arbitration, they need to contract for it.  Specifically.

The Court today issued a long-anticipated opinion for Lamp Plus Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (April 24) (available on the Court’s website at The decision is available on the Supreme Court website at http://bit.ly/2GxwFbC), holding that as a “fundamental arbitration” question, ambiguity in a contract “cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.”

The 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. reverses a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that used a California state law interpretation to allow a class arbitration.  The divided appellate panel opinion inferred mutual assent to class arbitration from language in the parties’ agreement.

But the statutory interpretation principle deployed by the appeals court, relying on public policy, was rejected. “[C]lass arbitration, to the extent it is manufactured by [state law] rather than consen[t], is inconsistent with the FAA,” wrote Roberts, adding,

We recently reiterated that courts may not rely on state contract principles to ‘reshape traditional individualized arbitration by mandating classwide arbitration procedures without the parties’ consent.’ . . . . But that is precisely what the court below did, requiring class arbitration on the basis of a doctrine that ‘does not help to determine the meaning that the two parties gave to the words, or even the meaning that a reasonable person would have given to the language used.’ 3 Corbin, Contracts §559, at 269–270. Such an approach is flatly inconsistent with “the foundational FAA principle that arbitration is a matter of consent.  . . .

In that key passage, Roberts cited three seminal class arbitration cases to back up his point: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333 (2011) (available at https://bit.ly/2KJc8RE), Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (available at https://bit.ly/2rWzAE8), and on the last point, the key Court case rejecting class arbitration unless it was permitted in the parties’ contract, Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662 (2010) (available at http://bit.ly/2Pp3Jq4).

The chief justice began and ended the opinion emphasizing Stolt-Nielsen.

Today’s Lamps Plus decision demonstrates the court’s profound conservative-liberal split. There are four dissents—the first by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor; two solo dissents by Breyer and Sotomayor, and the last by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Breyer and Ginsburg, and, for one part of the opinion, Sotomayor.

Kagan’s 14-page opinion, the longest of the dissents, rejects the Court’s Stolt-Nielsen backing and suggests it’s a screen for the majority’s own preferences. She writes that the Lamps Plus holding “is rooted instead in the majority’s belief that class arbitration ‘undermine[s] the central benefits of arbitration itself.’ But that policy view—of a piece with the majority’s ideas about class litigation—cannot justify displacing generally applicable state law about how to interpret ambiguous contracts.” [Citations omitted.]

Kagan writes that the Ninth Circuit applied a neutral interpretation rule in dealing with an ambiguity.

But Roberts rejected her reasoning in the majority opinion, the only dissent discussed beyond the footnotes in his majority opinion.  He cites AT&T Mobility for the principle that the interpretation “interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent with the FAA.”  He states that the same rule applies in Lamps Plus: “[The] rule cannot be applied to impose class arbitration in the absence of the parties’ consent.”

Roberts continues:

Our opinion today is far from the watershed Justice Kagan claims it to be. Rather, it is consistent with a long line of cases holding that the FAA provides the default rule for resolving certain ambiguities in arbitration agreements. For example, we have repeatedly held that ambiguities about the scope of an arbitration agreement must be resolved in favor of arbitration. See, e.g., [Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985 (available at http://bit.ly/2VmubpU); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 24–25 (1983) (available at http://bit.ly/2VhK0OE)%5D. In those cases, we did not seek to resolve the ambiguity by asking who drafted the agreement. Instead, we held that the FAA itself provided the rule. As in those cases, the FAA provides the default rule for resolving ambiguity here.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurrence noting that he remains skeptical of the Court’s use of the Federal Arbitration Act to preempt state law, but concurs in the majority opinion because of its backing of the Epic Systems and AT&T Mobility precedents.

* * *

 

Lamps Plus, the last of three arbitration cases to be decided in the Court’s current term, resolves a circuit splits between the Ninth and the Sixth, Third and Fifth Circuits on whether an arbitration agreement can be read to permit class wide arbitration where the agreement is silent on the matter. Compare, e.g., AlixPartne LLP v. Brewington, 836 F.3d 543, 547 (6th Cir. 2016), with Varela v. Lamps Plus Inc., No. 16-56085, 701 F. App’x 670, 673 (9th Cir. 2017)(unpublished)(available at http://bit.ly/2W66tv1), cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 1697 (2018).

The case marks a return to a class arbitration issue after the Court’s first two 2018-2019 cases were mostly focused on other Federal Arbitration Act areas.  Both were decided in January:

  • Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales, 139 S.Ct. 524 (Jan, 8, 2019) (available at https://bit.ly/2CXAgPw), mandating that arbitrators, rather than the courts, decide whether a case should be arbitrated in the face of an allegation that an argument for arbitration is “wholly groundless,” and
  • New Prime v. Oliveira, No. 17–340 (Jan. 15) (available at https://bit.ly/2JnrFWf), which enforced an FAA exclusion from arbitration a pre-dispute agreement with independent contractors who work in interstate transportation.

The Lamps Plus issue was “[w]hether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.”

In its statement on the question presented, the Court invoked its best-known class arbitration case, Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., which it noted held that a court could not order arbitration to proceed using class procedures unless there was a “contractual basis” for concluding that the parties have “agreed to” class arbitration. 559 U.S. at 684. The Court’s introduction to the Lamps Plus issue explained that courts may not “presume” such consent from “mere silence on the issue of class arbitration” or “from the fact of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.” Id. at 685, 687.

That presumption carried today’s opinion, which focused on arbitration agreement ambiguity, rather than silence. The Ninth Circuit majority had inferred mutual assent to class arbitration, according to Lamps Plus’s court papers, from language stating that “arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings” and a description of the substantive claims subject to arbitration.

Plaintiff Frank Varela, filed suit in 2016 against his employer, Lamp Plus Inc., a Chatsworth, Calif., home lighting retailer. Varela, who had worked at the company for nine years, has signed documents as a condition of his employment, including an arbitration agreement.  He also provided personal information to Lamp Plus prior to starting his job.

In March 2016, Lamp Plus was subject to a phish scam attack, resulting in sensitive personal information, such as employee tax forms for 1,300 Lamp Plus current and former employees, to be sent to a third party. As a result of the breach, Varela’s 2015 income tax was fraudulently filed with the stolen information.

Varela initiated a class action suit in California’s Central District state court on behalf of current and former employees affected by the breach, asserting both statutory and common law claims for the data breach, negligence, contract breach, and invasion of privacy. Lamp Plus moved to compel individual arbitration.

The court interpreted the contract under California state law and granted Lamp Plus’s motion compel to arbitration. The court, however, found ambiguities about whether class arbitration is permissible under the employer-drafted agreement. Varela v. Lamp Plus Inc., 2016 WL 9110161, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2016), aff’d, No. 16-56085, 701 F. App’x 670, 673 (9th Cir. 2017)(unpublished)(available at http://bit.ly/2W66tv1).

Lamp Plus argued that the arbitration should be compelled on an individual basis, because since the agreement does not mention class arbitration, there was “no contractual basis for finding that the parties intended to arbitrate on a class-wide basis.” Id. at *6. Relying on Stolt-Nielsen, Lamp Plus contended that if an arbitration clause is “silent” as to class arbitration, that parties cannot be compelled to submit their disputes to class arbitration. Id.

The district court rejected this argument. The district court distinguished the case from Stolt-Nielsen by interpreting the “silence” in Stolt-Nielsen to mean an “absence of agreement” rather than the absence of language within an agreement that explicitly refers to class arbitration (“The lack of an explicit mention of class arbitration does not constitute the ‘silence’ contemplated in Stolt-Nielsen, as the parties did not affirmatively agree to a waiver of class claims in arbitration.”) Lamp Plus, 2016 WL 9110161, at *7.

The court then found that the arbitration agreement was ambiguous as to the class claim, and interpreted the ambiguity against the contract drafter, noting that “the drafter of an adhesion contract must be held responsible for any ambiguity in the agreement”. Lamp Plus, 2016 WL 9110161, at *7 (citing Jacobs v. Fire Ins. Exch., 36 Cali. App. 4th 1258, 1281 (1995)).  Accordingly, the district court granted Lamp Post’s motion to compel arbitration, but compelled arbitration on a class-wide basis rather than an individual basis.

Lamp Plus appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Before a panel of Senior Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Circuit Judge Kim M. Wardlaw, and the late Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Lamps Plus argued that the parties did not intend to permit class arbitration.

In an unpublished opinion, the Circuit court affirmed the district court decision authorizing class proceedings. Varela v. Lamps Plus Inc., No. 16-56085, 701 F. App’x 670, 673 (9th Cir. 2017)(unpublished)(available at http://bit.ly/2W66tv1). Judge Fernandez authored a short dissenting opinion, in which he opined that the majority opinion as a “palpable evasion of Stolt-Nielsen.”  Id.

Lamp Plus then petitioned and was granted certiorari at the Supreme Court. Oral argument was heard on Oct. 29, 2018 (a transcript of the oral argument is available at https://bit.ly/2FukX2d).

Between the grant of certiorari and the oral argument, several organizations filed amicus curiae briefs to the Supreme Court in favor of reversing the Ninth Circuit decision, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the New England Legal Foundation, the Retail Litigation Center, Inc., the Voice of the Defense Bar, and the Center for Workplace Compliance. Friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of Respondent Varela were filed by a group of contract law scholars, and the American Association for Justice. The amicus curiae briefs can be accessed from https://bit.ly/2Ojt44n.

* * *

In his brief 13-page majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts first disposes of a late-in-the-litigation motion Varela challenging both the Ninth Circuit’s and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case. The opinion states that the determination of class over individual arbitration affects a fundamental characteristic of arbitration, and the result did not provide the defense what it sought—therefore, a final and appealable decision.

The meat of the majority opinion was reserved for the Ninth Circuit’s examination of California state law, which allowed for the class arbitration determination. It accepted the lower court’s state law “interpretation and application” that the agreement “should be regarded as ambiguous.”

But ambiguity from the state law statute wasn’t enough—“a conclusion,” Roberts writes, “that follows directly from our decision in Stolt-Nielsen.” He continues:

Class arbitration is not only markedly different from the “traditional individualized arbitration” contemplated by the FAA, it also undermines the most important benefits of that familiar form of arbitration. [Citing Epic Systems and Stolt-Nielsen.] The statute therefore requires more than ambiguity to ensure that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate on a classwide basis.

Roberts notes that in carrying out the parties’ arbitration contracting wishes and intent, courts must “recognize the ‘fundamental’ difference between class arbitration and the individualized form of arbitration envisioned by the FAA,” again citing Epic Systems, AT&T Mobility and Stolt-Nielsen.  Noting that class arbitration lacks the benefits of lower costs, greater efficiency and speed—“‘crucial differences’ between individual and class arbitration”—mutual consent is needed.

The opinion states that Stolt-Nielsen’s reasoning on silence being insufficient to infer class arbitration applies to ambiguity, too. “This conclusion aligns with our refusal to infer consent when it comes to other fundamental arbitration questions,” Roberts writes.

The chief justice explains that the Ninth’s Circuit’s use of the contra proferentem doctrine—construe the ambiguous document against the drafter—produced the result in favor of class arbitration. But the doctrine should only be invoked where “a court determines that it cannot discern the intent of the parties.” (The emphasis is Roberts’.)

Class arbitration provided by state law, explains Roberts, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. “The general contra proferentem rule cannot be applied to impose class arbitration in the absence of the parties’ consent,” the chief justice concludes.

* * *

In addition to Justice Thomas’s concurrence, and Justice Kagan’s dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Kagan’s opinion but writes separately “to emphasize once again how treacherously the Court has strayed from the principle that ‘arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion,’” also citing to Stolt-Nielsen at 681.

Decrying the Court’s use of mandatory arbitration in consumer disputes, Ginsburg says that the majority’s Lamps Plus decision “underscores the irony of invoking ‘the first principle’ that “arbitration is strictly a matter of consent,” citing to the majority opinion.

Invoking her own dissents in three cases, among others, Ginsburg concludes that “mandatory individual arbitration continues to thwart ‘effective access to justice’ for those encountering diverse violations of their legal rights,” and repeats her Epic Systems dissent calling on Congress to intervene.

* * *

Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined in the Kagan and Ginsburg dissents, but also provides a nine-page analysis disputing the Court’s quick work on the jurisdiction question.

Breyer writes that the case should be arbitrated as determined by the California courts. “[T]he appellate scheme of the FAA reflects Congress’ policy decision that, if a district court determines that arbitration of a claim is called for, there should be no appellate interference with the arbitral process unless and until that process has run its course,” he writes.

Breyer notes later that Lamps Plus successfully obtained appellate review by “transform[ing]” an interlocutory order in a final decision.

* * *

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also joined Justices Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s separate dissents, but added her view that the Court’s class arbitration view is, at best, highly confused.  She began:

This Court went wrong years ago in concluding that a “shift from bilateral arbitration to class-action arbitration” imposes such “fundamental changes,” Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662, 686 (2010), that class-action arbitration “is not arbitration as envisioned by the” Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333, 351 (2011). See, e.g., id., at 362–365 (Breyer, J., dissenting). A class action is simply “a procedural device” that allows multiple plaintiffs to aggregate their claims, 1 W. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 1:1 (5th ed. 2011), “[f]or convenience . . . and to prevent a failure of justice,” Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U. S. 356, 363 (1921).

Sotomayor says that the FAA should not preempt a “neutral principle of state contract law,” at least not in this instance. She concludes, “[T]he majority today invades California contract law without pausing to address whether its incursion is necessary. Such haste is as ill-advised as the new federal common law of arbitration contracts it has begotten.”

 

* * *

Wang was a Spring 2019 CPR Institute intern, and a student at Brooklyn Law School. Bleemer edits Alternatives, which the CPR Institute publishes. See altnewsletter.com.

 

More on Mass Individual Arbitration As an Alternative to Class Arbitration

By Echo K.X. Wang

A plaintiffs-side law firm is embracing a recently developed path to pursuing employment disputes against companies that mandate class-action waivers.

Last month in California’s Northern District federal court, Uber and Lyft were separately faced with individual JAMS Inc./American Arbitration Association claims and petitions to compel arbitration from thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers working for each company.

The Uber lawsuit, Abadilla v. Uber Technologies Inc., is scheduled for a hearing on a motion to compel arbitration on March 28 with U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen. (The Abadilla case page is available at http://bit.ly/2By5Zpf.)

The Lyft lawsuit, Abarca v. Lyft Inc., is scheduled for an initial case management conference on Mar. 14, 2019 with U.S. District Court Judge William Haskell Alsup. (The Abarca case page can be found at http://bit.ly/2Svtny8.)

The drivers claimed that the ride-share companies have misclassified them as independent contractors and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The basis for these arbitration claims arose in light of last year’s California Supreme Court case, Dynamex v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (Cal. April 30, 2018) (available at http://bit.ly/2ByKGnH), where the state’s top Court limited companies’ ability to label their workers as independent contractors. Unlike workers classified as employees, independent contractors, including Lyft and Uber drivers, are not entitled to minimum wage and other benefits promised under state and federal law.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled in favor of employers in limiting employee’s ability to bring class suits, backing waivers in favor of mandatory individual arbitration, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (available at https://bit.ly/2rWzAE8); see also Noah Hanft, “What’s Next for Employers, Post Epic Systems?” Corporate Counsel (July 24, 2018) (available on the CPR Institute’s website at http://bit.ly/2E6ZUlB).

Another earlier Supreme Court case, Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (available at http://bit.ly/2SP4ugk), held that a party may not be compelled to submit to class arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act unless otherwise provided for within the contract.

These decisions impose restrictions on employees’ ability to resolve workplace disputes, requiring them to arbitrate claims individually.

Yet 2019 has started off with a shift toward a more expansive view of workers’ rights which will affect—in ways yet to be determined—resolving conflicts with their employers. Last month, the Supreme Court in New Prime v. Oliveira, No. 17–340 (2019) (available at https://bit.ly/2CyEpbd) resolved a circuit split about whether the FAA Section 1 exemption applies to independent contractor agreements.

Plaintiff Oliveira brought a class action wage-and-hours claims against New Prime, an interstate trucking company. When New Prime sought to enforce its mandatory arbitration agreement under the FAA, Oliveira contended that he qualifies for the FAA Section 1 exemption, and the FAA shouldn’t apply to his case, thereby striking the mandatory arbitration clause in his independent contractor agreement.

The exemption clause states that “nothing herein” the FAA “shall apply to contracts of employment of . . . any [] class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” While both parties agreed that Oliveira is considered a class of worker “engaged in interstate commerce,” the parties disagreed on whether the FAA’s “contracts of employment” included independent contractor agreements, or only to employer-employee agreements.

In the unanimous 8-0 decision by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch—new Justice Brett Kavanaugh wasn’t seated when the case was argued and didn’t participate—the Court held that “contract of employment” includes a broad reading of employee-employer relationships, including independent contractor agreements. Therefore, under FAA Sec.1, transportation workers like Oliveira may not be compelled to arbitrate.

Looking to the historical usage of the word “employment,” Gorsuch explained that when the FAA was enacted in 1925, “employment” was understood broadly to be “more or less as a synonym for ‘work.’” He also noted that both federal and state courts in the early 20th century have used the term “contract of employment” to describe work agreements involving independent contractors.

In summary, he wrote, “a contract of employment did not necessarily imply the existence of an employer-employee . . . . relationship.” (Emphasis is in the opinion.)

* * *

The New Prime decision could have a significant impact on the interstate transportation industry, including the outcomes of the pending Uber and Lyft disputes. Chicago-based law firm Keller Lenkner  initially filed and is orchestrating both the 12,501 arbitrations claims against Uber (Abadilla v. Uber Technologies Inc.)and the 3,420 Lyft drivers arbitration claims against Lyft (Abarca v. Lyft Inc.).

When the two companies failed to fully pay the initial arbitration filing fees as promised within the companies’ arbitration agreements, Keller Lenkner enlisted Los Angeles firm Larson O’Brien LLP to help with the Uber Abadilla cases, and filed a motion to compel arbitration against both companies in the N. D. California District Court.

It is not a surprise that Uber and Lyft are delaying the fee payments. As it turns out, the large numbers of individual arbitrations are expensive and time consuming for companies. In the Uber arbitrations under JAMS, the initial filing fees for arbitration is $1,500 per dispute.

Similarly, Lyft’s American Arbitration Association arbitrations are $1,900 per dispute. A detailed list of AAA’s employment dispute arbitration fees is available at https://bit.ly/2X4VD9Q.

At the same time, Uber counters in the joint case management statement filed by both parties on Feb. 7 that the plaintiffs haven’t paid their arbitration fees either. The joint statement is available at http://bit.ly/2X10Tew.

Uber even proposed to resolve the arbitrations through four representative arbitrations. Alison Frankel, “Forced into arbitration, 12,500 drivers claim Uber won’t pay fees to launch case,” Reuters (Dec. 6, 2018) (available at https://reut.rs/2tha1xS). While Keller Lenkner rejected this offer on behalf of its clients, it is interesting and unusual that Uber proposed the equivalent of class arbitration, after fighting so hard—and successfully—against class action arbitrations at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. O’Connor, et al.  v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 14-16078 (Sept. 25, 2018) (available at http://bit.ly/2Gnhggl).

In combatting these individual arbitration claims, the ride-share companies adopted several tactics including: 1) delay the arbitrations by not paying the arbitration initial filing fees, 2) challenging their opposing counsels’ qualifications, and 3) offering incentives for employees to drop their arbitration claims.

The tactic to delay arbitration fee payments, as both Uber and Lyft seem to be doing, is not new. See Howard E. Levin, Stiffing the Arbitrators and the Respondents, ABA GPSolo eReport (Aug. 22, 2017) (available at http://bit.ly/2WZQD6c). Neither is the plaintiffs’ push for mass individual arbitrations. See Jessica Goodheart, “Why 24 Hour Fitness Is Going to the Mat against Its Own Employees,” Fast Company (March 13) (available at http://bit.ly/2pkDPIm) (A class of health club employees decertified by a California federal court filed hundreds of individual arbitrations, which the employer settled as a group); Ben Penn, “Buffalo Wild Wings Case Tests Future of Class Action Waivers,” Bloomberg Law (July 12, 2018), https://bit.ly/2Sx9qXY (Workers at Buffalo Wild Wings filed nearly 400 individual arbitrations for wage-and-hour disputes, which also resolved in a group settlement).

Uber and Lyft did not respond to a request for comment.

Since arbitrations can only proceed after the initial filing fees are paid, there is perverse incentive for companies to delay or even refuse to pay the arbitration fees, in hopes that employees would either pay for the filing fees themselves, or simply give up and abandon the claims altogether.

As noted, the companies advanced arguments to attack the qualifications of their opposing firms and attorneys. In a separate but similar wage-and-hour arbitration dispute at the California Northern District federal court, Uber succeeded in its motion to disqualify Keller Lenkner and its partner Warren Postman from representing Diva Limousine against Uber in Diva Limousine Ltd. v. Uber Technologies Inc. (case page available at http://bit.ly/2Ia1wz2).

In Diva, Uber argued that in his previous job at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Postman frequently “exchanged confidential and privileged communications [with Uber] on the driver classification issue,” and should therefore be disqualified for conflicts of interest. (A detailed account of Uber’s argument can be found at Alison Frankel, “Law firm for Uber drivers in mass arbitration is bounced from federal court case,” Reuters (Jan. 10) (available at https://reut.rs/2GntPYS).

On Jan. 11, Judge Edward M. Chen from the California Northern District federal court in San Francisco granted Uber’s motion to disqualify Postman & Keller Lenkner. On Feb. 11, 2019, the plaintiff appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, filing a writ of mandamus.

Uber is now trying to use the Diva opinion as the basis to disqualify Keller Lenkner and Larson O’Brien in the Abadilla case. In Uber’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration (see motion available at http://bit.ly/2TNcnjx), the company argued that while the counsel of record for the 12,501 drivers is the Larson O’Brien firm, the arbitration demands were initially submitted to JAMS by Keller Lenkner.

Uber expressed doubts on Larson O’Brien’s involvement in the case, alleging that Keller Lenkner, with Larson O’Brien by association, should not be able to represent the drivers given the Diva disqualification judgment.

Keller Lenkner might face the same conflict problem against Lyft as well.  In November, soon after Keller Lenkner requested arbitration, Lyft filed a tort lawsuit against Postman, seeking both money damages and an injunction against Postman from representing the Lyft drivers in arbitrations. (Lyft Inc. v. Postman, case court docket available at https://bit.ly/2SRO4DY). There, Lyft alleged that Postman worked closely with Lyft when he was at the Chamber of Commerce, and like Uber, alleged that he was exposed to confidential information about Lyft’s driver classification issues (see motion available at https://bit.ly/2tiNMYu).

On Jan. 16, the Court grant an extension for Postman to respond to the complaint, but Postman has yet to respond as of Feb. 14. It is unclear if the Diva opinion, now on appeal, would affect Keller Lenkner’s eligibility to represent the drivers in the Lyft arbitrations.

* * *

In addition to stalling the arbitration and imposing other defenses against the arbitrations, Uber and Lyft might also consider other ways to settle these claims. Uber already did this in the past, in offering to pay 11 cents per mile in exchange for drivers to opt out of another arbitration. After all, Uber and Lyft are both hoping to go public in the next few months, and it would be to their advantage to resolve these matters before then.

It is unknown if mass individual arbitrations—the plaintiffs’ “death by a thousand cuts” strategy—will turn out to be a key path for gig-economy workers. While mass individual arbitrations may impose pressure for companies to change their policies or to settle, would it be possible to arbitrate so many disputes?

Although it appears that Uber is stalling for time by attacking Postman’s qualifications, it is questionable whether Keller Lenkner, a 10-attorney firm, is equipped to handle more than 16,000 individual arbitrations–though, according to Keller Lenkner, they have been referring affected clients to other firms as a way to address this problem.

The plaintiffs’ mass arbitration strategy also has been questioned by experts, who wonder whether it risks corrupting the processes.  They charge that attorneys employing this strategy may be trying to gain negotiation leverage, rather than intending to arbitrate each claim, which, they say, is detrimental to ADR. See Andrew Wallender, “Corporate Arbitration Tactic Backfires as Claims Flood In,” Bloomberg Law (Feb. 11) (available at https://bit.ly/2BwruqF).

Moreover, in light of New Prime, significant changes loom in how transportation workers bring their claims. For drivers in the ride-share industry who “engage[] in … interstate commerce,” New Prime stands for the proposition that they have a choice to bring future wage and hour claims directly to the state and federal courts, rather than through arbitrations.

Another question is whether Uber and Lyft drivers will fit under the FAA Sec. 1 umbrella of transportation workers “engaged in … interstate commerce.” Even if they are, how will the New Prime sit with individual state laws and regulations?

 

The author is a Spring 2019 CPR Institute intern, and a student at Brooklyn Law School.

Implications of Henry Schein and New Prime US Supreme Court Decisions

By Mark Kantor

Kantor Photo (8-2012)

As you know, the US Supreme Court has now issued its opinions in two of the three arbitration-related cases it heard this Term, the 8-0 (with an additional short concurrence by Justice Ginsburg) unanimous decision authored by Justice Gorsuch in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and the 9-0 unanimous decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh in Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales.  Only Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela remains to be decided this Term (Question Presented: whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) overrides a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements).

The headlines in those decisions relate to excluding from the FAA obligation to enforce arbitration any pre-dispute agreements with independent contractor transportation workers (New Prime v. Oliveira) and the rejection of a “wholly groundless” exception to a court’s obligation to allow the arbitral tribunal to decide jurisdictional disputes where the parties have “clearly and unmistakably” allocated that authority to the arbitrators (Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales).  But there are other implications of those decisions to which we should pay attention.

First, with respect to the decision in Henry Schein and as discussed on the listserv, the lower courts had relied on the competence-competence Rule 7(a) in the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules to conclude that the parties had “clearly and unmistakably” allocated that decision-making power to the arbitrators, as required by First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan.  However, the Henry Schein Court stated:

We express no view about whether the contract at issue in this case in fact delegated the arbitrability question to an arbitrator.  The Court of Appeals did not decide that issue.  Under our cases, courts “should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so.” First Options, 514 U. S., at 944 (alterations omitted).  On remand, the Court of Appeals may address that issue in the first instance, as well as other arguments that Archer and White has properly preserved.

As has been explained by others, there is an existing Circuit split as to whether a competence-competence provision in arbitration rules is sufficient to satisfy the First Options standard.  Moreover, Prof. George Bermann’s amicus brief on that issue, reflecting the view of the draft Restatement that a provision within the arbitration rules should not by itself be sufficient, triggered critical questioning by the Justices (particularly Justice Ginsburg) at the case’s oral argument.  That issue was not, however, part of the Question Presented on which the Supreme Court had granted certiorari for review.  It thus appears the Justices are preparing themselves to resolve that Circuit split in a future case.  In that regard, you may recall my October 31 post (see below, triggered by Prof. Bermann’s amicus brief) asking whether that question will be “the Next Big Arbitration Issue”.

Second, the New Prime decision makes clear that independent contractors may nevertheless be transportation “workers” with “employment agreements” who cannot be bound by a pre-dispute arbitration agreement enforceable under the FAA.  Mr. Oliveira himself is an independent trucker.  But I suggest to you the bigger practical impact will be to reinvigorate class actions in US courts brought by Uber and Lyft drivers against their respective ride-sharing employers.  Many of those judicial class actions had been dismissed in favor of arbitration due to mandatory arbitration clauses in the drivers’ independent contracts with the ride-sharing companies.

Similarly, seamen on shipping and fishing vessels and working personnel on cruise ships are not often employees of their shipping companies, fishing vessels or cruise lines etc.  Instead, they are regularly engaged under independent contractor agreements containing arbitration clauses.  There too, we can anticipate a resurgence of claims in US courts, rather than in arbitration, including possible class actions against shipping companies and cruise lines on various compensation, hiring and firing, and working conditions issues.  Unlike ride-sharing companies, though, those maritime companies generally operate internationally.  Consequently, we may anticipate as well that even more of those maritime companies will specify in their employment/independent contractor agreements an arbitration situs outside FAA jurisdiction, such as the many maritime employment arbitrations now being conducted in Caribbean seats.

Rail workers may also employ New Prime to move some disputes from arbitration to courts, although much of that field in the US is unionized under collective bargaining agreements for which arbitration is statutorily authorized outside the FAA.  Independent contractor relationships are less common.

But Justice Gorsuch may have gone further in his opinion.  He wrote:

Given the statute’s terms and sequencing, we agree with the First Circuit that a court should decide for itself whether §1’s “contracts of employment” exclusion applies before ordering arbitration. After all, to invoke its statutory powers under §§3 and 4 to stay litigation and compel arbitration according to a contract’s terms, a court must first know whether the contract itself falls within or beyond the boundaries of §§1 and 2. The parties’ private agreement may be crystal clear and require arbitration ofevery question under the sun, but that does not necessarily mean the Act authorizes a court to stay litigation and send the parties to an arbitral forum.

(Emphasis added)

It is certainly possible to interpret that statement to mean that a court must itself determine whether the arbitration agreement falls within or outside §2 of the FAA, not just FAA §1.  FAA Section 1 excludes, according to long-standing precedent, maritime transportation workers from the obligations of the court to stay litigation and compel arbitration.  But FAA §2, the basic provision of the FAA enforcing covered arbitration agreements, contains the well-known savings clause for “such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract”:

A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

(Emphasis added)

The quoted language authored by Justice Gorsuch (and endorsed by seven other Justices) can be read to suggest that, regardless of any “clear and unmistakable” delegation of jurisdictional decisions to arbitrators by the contracting parties, a supervising court must itself determine whether a challenge to an arbitration agreement on grounds such as unconscionability, duress or mistake is successful before the dispute proceeds to arbitration; i.e., a challenge under FAA §2 on grounds that exist in law or equity for revocation of any contract.  Certainly, counsel for parties seeking to avoid an arbitral forum in favor of a judicial forum will seize upon that language in New Prime to try to place the dispute in the courts.  We do not know if that was what Justice Gorsuch intended, but we can therefore anticipate a string of US court cases addressing the “who decides” issue again from that perspective, ultimately returning to the US Supreme Court for further clarification.

There is also another important conceptual issue embedded in Justice Gorsuch’s New Prime opinion that may affect many other issues relating to the FAA.  Justice Gorsuch spent considerable effort in his opinion focusing on the original legislative intent in 1925 for the FAA.  For example, these selections from the opinion.

Why this very particular qualification?  By the time it adopted the Arbitration Act in 1925, Congress had already prescribed alternative employment dispute resolution regimes for many transportation workers.  And it seems Congress “did not wish to unsettle” those arrangements in favor of whatever arbitration procedures the parties’ private contracts might happen to contemplate.

****

In taking up this question, we bear an important caution in mind. “[I]t’s a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction’ that words generally should be ‘interpreted as taking their ordinary . . . meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.’” Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9) (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42 (1979)). See also Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 571 U. S. 220, 227 (2014).  After all, if judges could freely invest old statutory terms with new meanings, we would risk amending legislation outside the “single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure” the Constitution commands. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 951 (1983).  We would risk, too, upsetting reliance interests in the settled meaning of a statute. Cf. 2B N. Singer & J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction §56A:3 (rev. 7th ed. 2012).  Of course, statutes may sometimes refer to an external source of law and fairly warn readers that they must abide that external source of law, later amendments and modifications included. Id., §51:8 (discussing the reference canon).  But nothing like that exists here.  Nor has anyone suggested any other appropriate reason that might allow us to depart from the original meaning of the statute at hand.

****

To many lawyerly ears today, the term “contracts of employment” might call to mind only agreements between employers and employees (or what the common law sometimes called masters and servants).  Suggestively, at least one recently published law dictionary defines the word “employment” to mean “the relationship between master and servant.” Black’s Law Dictionary 641 (10th ed. 2014).  But this modern intuition isn’t easily squared with evidence of the term’s meaning at the time of the Act’s adoption in 1925.  At that time, a “contract of employment” usually meant nothing more than an agreement to perform work.

****

What’s the evidence to support this conclusion?  It turns out that in 1925 the term “contract of employment” wasn’t defined in any of the (many) popular or legal dictionaries the parties cite to us.  And surely that’s a first hint the phrase wasn’t then a term of art bearing some specialized meaning.  It turns out, too, that the dictionaries of the era consistently afforded the word “employment” a broad construction, broader than may be often found in dictionaries today.  Back then, dictionaries tended to treat “employment” more or less as a synonym for “work.”  Nor did they distinguish between different kinds of work or workers: All work was treated as employment, whether or not the common law criteria for a master-servant relationship happened to be satisfied.

What the dictionaries suggest, legal authorities confirm.  This Court’s early 20th-century cases used the phrase “contract of employment” to describe work agreements involving independent contractors.  Many state court cases did the same.  So did a variety of federal statutes.  And state statutes too.  We see here no evidence that a “contract of employment” necessarily signaled a formal employer-employee or master-servant relationship.

****

If courts felt free to pave over bumpy statutory texts in the name of more expeditiously advancing a policy goal, we would risk failing to “tak[e] . . . account of ” legislative compromises essential to a law’s passage and, in that way, thwart rather than honor “the effectuation of congressional intent.” Ibid.  By respecting the qualifications of §1 today, we “respect the limits up to which Congress was prepared” to go when adopting the Arbitration Act. United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 298 (1970).

****

When Congress enacted the Arbitration Act in 1925, the term “contracts of employment” referred to agreements to perform work.  No less than those who came before him, Mr. Oliveira is entitled to the benefit of that same understanding today.

****

(footnotes omitted)

As US arbitration practitioners are aware, the US Federal courts have for many decades strayed from the exact text of the FAA in the course of developing US federal arbitration law.  Instead, the Federal courts have developed a sort of “common law” of arbitration, building on their notions of how to fill legislative gaps or to find modern interpretations to effectuate the FAA’s purposes.  The most obvious example lies in the continuing Circuit split over the meaning of arbitrator “evident partiality” as a ground for vacatur of arbitration awards by arbitrators alleged to have conflicts of interest.  So too, the judicial presumption in favor of arbitration itself.  If Justice Gorsuch’s “1925 legislative intent” approach is applied to such issues, US arbitration jurisprudence on arbitrator conflicts, presumptions of arbitration and many other issues may be in for a vigorous shaking up.

Justice Ginsburg was attentive to the implications of this interpretive approach, although I rather doubt her primary focus was on FAA jurisprudence.  In her short concurrence to the unanimous opinion (in which she also joined), Justice Ginsburg pointed out a more flexible view for interpreting legislative meaning.

Congress, however, may design legislation to govern changing times and circumstances. See, e.g., Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 14) (“Congress . . . intended [the Sherman Antitrust Act’s] reference to ‘restraint of trade’ to have ‘changing content,’ and authorized courts to oversee the term’s ‘dynamic potential.’” (quoting Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U. S. 717, 731‒732 (1988))); SEC v. Zandford, 535 U. S. 813, 819 (2002) (In enacting the Securities Exchange Act, “Congress sought to substitute a philosophy of full disclosure for the philosophy of caveat emptor . . . . Consequently, . . . the statute should be construed not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate its remedial purposes.” (internal quotation marks and paragraph break omitted)); H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U. S. 229, 243 (1989) (“The limits of the relationship and continuity concepts that combine to define a [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] pattern . . . cannot be fixed in advance with such clarity that it will always be apparent whether in a particular case a ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ exists. The development of these concepts must await future cases . . . .”). As these illustrations suggest, sometimes, “[w]ords in statutes can enlarge or contract their scope as other changes, in law or in the world, require their application to new instances or make old applications anachronistic.” West v. Gibson, 527 U. S. 212, 218 (1999).

These different approaches toward divining legislative meaning are part of the basic legal philosophy differences between the conservative and liberal wings of the Supreme Court.  Those differences will play out in many areas of US law but, in light of New Prime, one of them now may be the interpretation of the FAA.

_______________________________________________

Mark Kantor is a CPR Distinguished Neutral. Until he retired from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Mark was a partner in the Corporate and Project Finance Groups of the Firm. He currently serves as an arbitrator and mediator. He teaches as an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (Recipient, Fahy Award for Outstanding Adjunct Professor). Additionally, Mr. Kantor is Editor-in-Chief of the online journal Transnational Dispute Management.

This material was first published on OGEMID, the Oil Gas Energy Mining Infrastructure and Investment Disputes discussion group sponsored by the on-line journal Transnational Dispute Management (TDM, at https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/), and is republished with consent.

US Sup Ct: Will the “Next Big Arbitration Issue” Be Whether Provisions of Arbitration Rules Constitute Clear and Unmistakable Evidence That the Disputing Parties Allocated “Who Decides” Authority to the Arbitrators?

By Mark Kantor

Kantor Photo (8-2012)

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two arbitration-related cases on Monday, Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer & White Sales Inc. and Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela.  The issue before the Court in Henry Schein was whether or not there is a “wholly groundless” exception to the general Federal Arbitration Act caselaw rule that, if the parties have “clearly and unmistakably” allocated the “who decides” question to the arbitrators, then issues of jurisdiction/arbitrability are for the arbitrator to decide in the first instance, not the courts.

The facts of the Henry Schein case involved the relatively commonplace occurrence of a commercial arbitration agreement referencing arbitration rules (here, AAA Commercial Arbitration Rule 7(a)) that grant the arbitrators the power to decide their own jurisdiction.  The lower courts in Henry Schein, like many other Federal courts before them, concluded that provision of the Rules constituted “clear and unmistakable evidence” (as called for by the Supreme Court in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan) allocating the “who decides” authority to the arbitrators, and then proceeded to consider whether or not an exception to that allocation exists if the claim of arbitrability is “wholly groundless”.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled below in Henry Schein that such a “wholly groundless” exception does exist.  Further, said the Court of Appeals, that “wholly groundless” exception applied in the dispute such that the Federal courts could refuse to compel arbitration in the circumstances.  The disappointed claimant then sought, and obtained, U.S. Supreme Court review on the question of whether such a “wholly groundless” exception to the “clear and unmistakable evidence” allocation rule exists under Federal arbitration law.

However, Prof. George Bermann of Columbia Law School, known to many of us as inter alia the chief reporter of the ALI’s Restatement of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration, felt moved to submit an amicus brief in Henry Schein questioning, not the issue expressly before the Court, but instead the underlying principle that incorporation of arbitration rules granting jurisdiction/arbitrability power to the arbitrators satisfies the “clear and unmistakable evidence” test for allocating “who decides” authority to the arbitrators .

Although a majority of courts have found the incorporation of rules containing such a provision to satisfy First Options’ “clear and unmistakable” evidence test, the ALI’s Restatement of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration has concluded, after extended debate, that these cases were incorrectly decided because incorporation of such rules cannot be regarded as manifesting the “clear and unmistakable” intention that First Options requires.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1272/65270/20181001112810079_REPRINT%20Amicus-GAB.pdf .

Many of the Supreme Court Justices commented that this issue of “clear and unmistakable evidence … due to incorporation by reference” was not part of the Question Presented on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Henry Schein.  Based on those comments, it seems unlikely that the eventual decision of the Court in Henry Schein will resolve the issue posed by Prof. Bermann.  Nevertheless, Justices from across the judicial spectrum commented respectfully regarding Prof. Bermann’s amicus argument.  See comments and questions of Justice Ginsburg, Tr. 7:16-23; Justice Breyer, Tr. 49:15-23; Justice Gorsuch, Tr. 42:13-20; Justice Sotomayor, Tr. 38:4-7; Justice Alito, Tr. 35:7-36:4.

Counsel for the Petitioner did take substantive issue with Prof. Bermann’s argument, in addition to arguing that the issue was not within the Question Presented and thus in any event not before the Court.

What is going on in this case, if you look at the four corners of the delegation -of the arbitration agreement **** is that the arbitration agreement by its terms incorporates the rules of the American Arbitration Association and it does so very clearly. That is a quite common arrangement, particularly in commercial arbitrations like the one at issue here.

Then, if you take a look at the rules of the American Arbitration Association, those rules, and, in particular, Rule 7(a), clearly give the arbitrator the authority to decide arbitrability.  And under this Court’s decision in First Options, the relevant inquiry is whether or not the parties were willing to be bound by the arbitrator’s determination on the issue in question.

And so, with all due respect to Professor Bermann and his amicus brief, the position that he propounds has been rejected by every court of appeals to have considered this issue.  And if the Court has any interest in this issue, I would refer the Court to the very thoughtful opinion of the Tenth Circuit in the Belnap case, which discusses this issue in some detail.

Tr. 8:9-9:13.

The transcript of the oral argument in Henry Schein, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-1272_bqmc.pdf, is very much worth reading in this regard.

The arguably positive comments by some Justices in reaction to Prof. Bermann’s amicus argument create the possibility that opportunistic counsel in other cases will see a signal that raising the principle to the Supreme Court in a future case might be worth the effort.  Consequently, I suggest that the “Next Big Arbitration Issue” to come to the U.S. Supreme Court may be whether or not an arbitration agreement incorporating arbitration rules that include within themselves a provision authorizing the arbitrators to rule on their own competence satisfies the “clear and unmistakable evidence” test in First Options for allocating “who decides” authority to the arbitrators in the first instance.

By the way, reading the tea leaves in the Henry Schein oral argument, at least some observers believe the comments/questions of the Supreme Court Justices indicate that the Court is not inclined to validate a “wholly groundless” exception to the allocation of “who decides” authority to the arbitrators.  See, e.g., http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/argument-analysis-justices-signal-opposition-to-vague-exceptions-that-would-limit-enforceability-of-arbitration-agreements/#more-276785.

_______________________________________________

Mark Kantor is a CPR Distinguished Neutral. Until he retired from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Mark was a partner in the Corporate and Project Finance Groups of the Firm. He currently serves as an arbitrator and mediator. He teaches as an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (Recipient, Fahy Award for Outstanding Adjunct Professor). Additionally, Mr. Kantor is Editor-in-Chief of the online journal Transnational Dispute Management.

This material was first published on OGEMID, the Oil Gas Energy Mining Infrastructure and Investment Disputes discussion group sponsored by the on-line journal Transnational Dispute Management (TDM, at https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/), and is republished with consent.

Amicus Preview, Part 2: The Independent Contractors Want Their FAA Sec. 1 Exemption

By Sara Higgins and Russ Bleemer

The respondents’ amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the First U.S. Circuit Court decision in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340, which was argued earlier this month, focus on statutory history and the plain meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act.

They argue that independent contractors are exempt from FAA application like other transportation workers under a “contract of employment.” That exemption is in the act itself, in Sec. 1, which states, “. . . nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

In other words, the unions, scholars and think tanks excerpted below say the protections the 1925 FAA drafters provided to transportation employees also goes to independent contractors.  Some amicus argue that the term “employees” meant something different then than it means now.

One brief tackles the arbitrability issue that is before the Court, too. Though most amicus filers on both sides focused on the merits of whether the FAA applies to independent contractors, the source of the arbitrability decision–on whether the matter will be heard in arbitration to be made by either a court or an arbitrator–also is expected to be a part of the Supreme Court’s opinion.

The material below covers the respondents’ friend-of-the-court briefs backing independent truck driver Dominic Oliveira. For the petitioner’s briefs, which were filed first, as well as for background on the case and links to deeper dives into the facts and the issues, see the immediately previous CPR Speaks feature, Sara Higgins, “Amicus Preview: New Prime’s New Look at Mandatory Arbitration,” CPR Speaks (Oct. 2)(available at https://bit.ly/2zNqYUF).

In support of Respondent Oliveira:

  1. American Association for Justice
  • AAJ, which represents trial lawyers, offers a broad historical argument that says that the FAA Sec. 1 exemption from the law’s application includes all transportation workers, not just seamen and railway workers.
  • The Washington, D.C.-based association is concerned that the Federal Arbitration Act constructions by petitioner New Prime undermine the right of U.S. workers to pursue their statutory and common-law rights in a judicial forum.
  • AAJ believes it is clear that all workers in the transportation sector, whether “employees” or “independent contractors,” were meant to be exempted from the FAA.
  • New Prime’s narrow construction belies the FAA enactment history, Congressional intent, and basic principles of contract construction as applied by the Court and elsewhere. Independent vehicle owner-operators and others contracting to perform work themselves certainly existed at the time the FAA was passed, and had Congress not wished the exemption to apply to all who actually worked in the transportation sector, it would have said so.
  • That Congress meant to exempt all workers in the transportation section from the FAA– not limited or reliant upon how that worker happened to be paid—is consistent with the Court’s decisions and other Congressional action.
  • In historical context, the use of the term “contracts of employment” routinely included the “employment” of “independent contractor” drivers and, hence, is not meant to exclude any drivers from the benefit of the exception. The Sec. 1 exemption, which was urged by American Federation of Labor lobbyists at the 1925 FAA enactment, the brief notes, “would surely have included all members of one of its most important affiliates, the Teamsters.”
  1. Public Citizen, Inc.
  • The Washington consumer advocacy group, a frequent participant in federal arbitration litigation on behalf of consumers and employees, submits its amicus brief to address one of the two issues raised by petitioner New Prime: whether, when a contract contains an arbitration provision including a clause delegating questions of the arbitrability of a matter to an arbitrator, the FAA requires a court to compel arbitration of the issue whether the FAA even applies to the contract.
  • The brief notes that both the amicus and the parties focus more on the merits issue—that is, whether the FAA exemption applies to all transportation workers—and pay insufficient attention to the arbitrability issue before the Court.
  • Although New Prime’s argument—that the FAA requires a court to refer the issue of its own applicability to an arbitrator without first addressing a substantial argument that the FAA doesn’t not apply to the contract containing the delegation clause the court is being asked to enforce—seems counterintuitive, Public Citizen says its amicus brief addressing the issue may assist the Court in reaching a decision that adds clarity to arbitration law and helps define the limits of the Court’s rulings on the subject.
  • The FAA cannot, and does not, require a court to enforce any arbitration agreement unless the court determines that the FAA applies to that agreement.
  • “The requirement that a court decide whether the contract at issue is excluded from the FAA’s coverage by section 1 before ordering arbitration of any issue (including the section 1 issue itself) is critical, because any order compelling arbitration under the FAA is necessarily applying the FAA to give effect to a purported agreement to arbitrate. A court may not apply the FAA where the FAA itself provides that it is inapplicable.”
  • New Prime’s invocation of its delegation clause and the principle of “severability” cannot justify application of the FAA to a contract to which the FAA does not apply.
  1. Sheldon Whitehouse, D., R.I.
  • Whitehouse, a former state attorney general and U.S. Attorney, invokes Alexis de Tocqueville, Blackstone, and Machiavelli at the outset of his brief, which launches a broadside at the Court’s arbitration jurisprudence. He writes that he files the brief “to draw attention to the Court’s steady march of decisions eroding the Constitution’s Seventh Amendment protections and to warn of the Court’s perilous destabilization of its own institutional reputation.”
  • “Over the past decade,” states Whitehouse, “a predictable conservative majority of the Supreme Court has handed down an accommodating string of 5-4 decisions closing off ordinary citizens’ pathways to the courtroom. Corporate victories at the Supreme Court have undermined civil litigants’ constitutional right to have their claims heard before a jury of their peers, and have whittled to a nub the protective role courts and the jury system were designed to play in our society. Such victories have allowed corporations to steer plaintiffs out of courtrooms and into arbitration, where the odds can be stacked in favor of big business. The Court’s recent arbitration decisions regarding the [FAA], aggrandizing its reach and undermining the original purpose of the Seventh Amendment, are an example.”
  • “[T]his grant of certiorari has the same seeming inevitability as those 5-4 decisions in cases preceding it. Accordingly, amicus fears that the outcome of this case may be preordained—not by the FAA’s plain language, but instead by the trajectory of the recent pattern of 5-4 partisan decisions (decisions in which the Court divides 5-4 with the Republican-appointed majority voting as a bloc). With numbingly predictable inevitability, these cases seem to be won by the ‘more powerful and wealthy’ corporate citizens.”
  • Whitehouse’s legal arguments surrounded two key points in urging the Court to back the First Circuit: “A clear policy preference has emerged for denying citizens their day in court,” and the Court “compromises its legitimacy when it jettisons neutral principles to reach a desired outcome.”
  1. Historians
  • The amicus brief was prepared on behalf “scholars of American labor and legal history [who] have a professional interest in accurate and valid inferences from the historical record”: Shane Hamilton, University of York; Jon Huibregtse, Framingham State University; James Gray Pope, Rutgers Law School; Imre Szalai, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law; Paul Taillon, University of Auckland; and Ahmed White, University of Colorado School of Law.
  • By operation of the ejusdem generis canon, which indicates that a statutory provision should be interpreted in accordance with the words nearby—“of the same kind”–the FAA exemption’s residual clause (“any other class of workers”) does not cover only common law employees in the wake of the statute’s enumeration of railroad workers and seamen. If Congress had intended the FAA exemption to cover only common-law employees, as New Prime now reads it, Congress would have disrupted the statutory dispute resolution schemes for “seamen” and “railroad employees” that it had wanted to avoid unsettling.
  • Relying on more than three dozen agency determinations, the brief notes that the Transportation Act covered railroad workers who would not have counted as employees under the common law of agency. Similarly, shipping arbitration “covered ‘any question whatsoever’ in a seaman’s dispute, including those that did not turn on whether the seaman was anyone’s ‘employee’ under the common law of agency.”
  • The FAA would have disrupted the Transportation Act had it only exempted common-law employees. The theory appears to be that the FAA Sec. 1 exemption applies to independent contractors, which the brief barely mentions, though it notes that independent contractors were covered for railway workers disputes under the Transportation Act of 1920 and seamen disputes under the Shipping Commissioners Act of 1872.
  1. Constitutional Accountability Center
  • The Washington, D.C., think tank and public interest law firm, devoted to a progressive interpretation of the Constitution’s text and history, is concerned with “ensuring meaningful access to the courts, in accordance with constitutional text, history, and values.” Heavily citing numerous dictionary definitions, the Center argues that New Prime’s argument badly misinterprets the view of the definition of employees when the FAA was passed. The Center backs affirming the First Circuit interpretation.
  • When Congress enacted the FAA, “employment” was a broad and general term that did not connote a master-servant relationship. Dictionaries of the era, however, defined the word “employment” by consistently giving it a broad meaning—one that encompassed paying another person for his or her work, whether or not the common-law criteria for a master-servant relationship were satisfied. The word “employee” gradually influenced, and limited, the meaning of the term employment, but only well after the FAA was enacted.
  1. Massachusetts, et al.
  • Fourteen states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief because they state that they enforce laws that protect the public interest, including those that set fair labor standards and promote the health and safety of all working people. Employees who are misclassified as independent contractors are often denied many basic workplace protections and benefits that they are entitled to receive—and employers who fail to properly classify and pay their workers gain an unfair competitive advantage. The states and the District of Columbia “have an interest in seeing that transportation sector workers such as Respondent Dominic Oliveira get their day in court, as Congress intended.”
  • Because states have limited resources, they rely on individual employees to supplement the efforts of attorneys general through private enforcement actions. “And many transportation companies engage in exploitative labor practices while at the same time using mandatory arbitration agreements with unreasonable forum selection clauses to attempt to prevent their misclassified drivers from pursuing otherwise available legal remedies.”
  • The FAA Sec. 1 language of the transportation workers’ exemption excludes interstate truck drivers from the FAA’s scope, regardless of whether they are employees or independent owner-operators. This conclusion becomes especially clear in light of the history surrounding Congress’s regulation of leases between independent truck drivers and authorized motor carriers.
  • Both of New Prime’s arguments are foreclosed by the FAA’s plain language, read in its proper historical context.
  1. Employment Law Scholars
  • The amicus brief signers are 35 law professors who have taught and written about employment law. They submit this brief because they believe that the FAA should be construed consistent with how all other statutes and related case law treat issues of worker status.
  • Petitioner New Prime and its amicus supporters ask the Court to interpret contracts of employment as used in the FAA based solely on the labels used in particular contracts, drawing distinctions between independent contractors and employees where there is no sound basis to do so.
  • “Allowing worker status to be decided by contract would set the FAA apart from every other federal statute governing workers. It would lead to inconsistency and uncertainty in the workplace because worker status would vary based on contract or the label chosen for each worker.” In New Prime, it could jeopardize the Fair Labor Standards Act’s mission that “prevent[s] parties from contracting away employees’ rights to minimum wages and overtime compensation,” the brief notes, adding that the Court “must not, through the FAA, endorse this type of race to the bottom.”
  • Many federal and state statutory schemes do not distinguish between common law employees and independent contractors.
  • The reality of the working relationship, not the face of the contract, determines workers status under federal employment statutes.
  1. Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
  • The 45-year-old Grain Valley, Mo.-based association submitted its amicus brief to inform the court that owner-operator truck drivers are a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce, and how their lease agreements with motor carriers, such as petitioner New Prime, are contracts of employment as set out in the FAA Sec. 1 exemption.
  • The amicus brief is filed by the largest international trade association representing the interests of independent owner-operators, small-business motor carriers, and professional drivers. The association notes that the question of whether the contracts of owner-operators are subject to the FAA will determine whether owner-operators will continue to have any meaningful opportunity to protect their small businesses from the type of predatory behavior described in defendant Oliveira’s brief. “Especially important,” the association notes, “is the right to bring an action in federal court for damages and injunctive relief specifically granted to owner-operators by Congress in 1995.”
  • Congress looked to two factors when it formed FAA Sec. 1’s scope: “the maintenance of a smooth operating transportation system and Congressional concerns for enacting specific regulations governing the contracts of transportation workers.” The legislative and regulatory history demonstrates that motor carrier/owner-operator contracts are among those Congress exempted from FAA application by Sec. 1 to achieve the goals in the statute’s adoption: The “provision of different procedures and forums to resolve disputes under those contracts demonstrate precisely the type of contract for employment of persons engaged in interstate commerce that Congress intended to exempt from the FAA.”
  1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Employment Law Project Inc., Economic Policy Institute, and National Employment Lawyers Association
  • Like AAJ and the state amicus briefs, the four-party amicus brief also is concerned about the misclassification of independent contractors by employers, which, among other things, cuts off employers’ responsibility for taxes and liability on behalf of and to their workers. The brief is concerned that a ruling in favor of petitioner New Prime would create incentives for more companies to misclassify their employees as independent contractors in order to evade worker protections.
  • The interest in this case by the amicus filers—a big union, an employment lawyers’ association that focuses on plaintiffs’ representation; an employees’ advocacy research organization, and an economics policy think tank–is to ensure that drivers involved in interstate commerce, including those classified as independent contractors, are afforded the FAA Sec. 1 exemption granted to contracts of employment in the transportation industry.
  • The brief also states that Prime’s errant suggestion that employment relationships under the FAA should be identified by the terms of the contract alone may affect misclassification analysis under other statutes.
  • Truck drivers, like respondent Oliveira, “are frequently misclassified by their employers as independent contractors. This treatment excludes drivers from basic labor and employment protections like the minimum wage, health and safety, and discrimination protections, to name a few.”
  • The brief says that the Supreme Court doesn’t need to determine whether Oliveira was misclassified by New Prime, “because he and the company entered into a contract of employment that should be exempt under the plain language of the Federal Arbitration Act.”
  • Alternatively, the brief argues, if the Court decides that the employee versus independent contractor relationship must be decided in order to determine FAA applicability, “it should take into account the independent contractor misclassification problems endemic in the trucking industry, the impacts on workers, other employers, and state budget and tax coffers, and on employers’ economic incentives to misclassify more drivers that will result.”
  • And if the Court finds that the contract-of-employment analysis requires a determination of whether a worker is an independent contractor, that determination must consider all incidents of the relationship and not be limited to the unilaterally imposed terms of the contract.
  • The FAA’s plain text shows that the Court should find that truckers’ independent contractor arrangements are “contracts of employment” and exempt from the FAA’s coverage. The brief emphasizes the policy consequences of a holding to the contrary.
  • Independent contractor misclassification and the unlawful and exploitative working conditions it engenders are rampant across the economy, but particularly prominent in the trucking sector.
  • Bad-actor employers misclassify works in attempts to avoid tax and other liability, imposing significant societal costs on the public, law-abiding employers, and workers.
  1. Statutory Construction Scholars
  • The amicus brief was written on behalf of 14 law school professors engaged in the teaching and study of statutory construction principles. They believe that a “shared commitment” to certain standards of analytical care “leads to only one conclusion in this case–that application of key canons of statutory construction” to the FAA contracts-of-employment language “applies to all transportation workers without exclusion of workers who are deemed to be independent contractors, and without the legally protected status of “employees.”
  • “The First Circuit’s opinion in Oliveira v. New Prime Inc., reflects a well-reasoned, thoughtful approach to statutory construction. Petitioner attempts to upend that decision and contorts the canons of statutory construction beyond their reasonable parameters in a miscarriage of justice.”
  • The petitioner’s conclusion that the FAA’s contracts-of-employment statutory exception is limited to only those with the legal status of “employees” is not sound.
  • First, the words in statutes are read in light of their ordinary, plain meaning. Those words, the brief notes, “are understood from the perspective of what was meant when they were drafted.” [Emphasis is in the brief.] The petitioner’s argument, “which rests on modern dictionary definitions instead of inquiring into the terms’ meaning at the time the FAA was enacted, fails to comply with those canons of statutory construction and should be disregarded.”
  • The ejusdem generis canon (see above) does not support limiting contracts of employment to employees.
  • Reading the residual exclusion of the FAA’s Sec. 1 to include all transportation workers does not negate FAA Sec. 2 language, which must be read independently because it has a different substantive mandate.

Steve Viscelli, et al.

  • Steve Viscelli is a University of Pennsylvania sociologist who studies work, labor markets, and public policy related to freight transportation, automation and energy. He submitted the brief to provide a better picture of the economic incentives at work in the trucking industry. He provides an analysis of trucking industry’s employment evolution to a “Lease-Operator” model from owner-operators in urging the Court to avoid requiring arbitration to settle employment disputes in the industry.
  • Viscelli is joined by six current or former owner-operators or Lease-Operator truck drivers, whose situations are used as examples in the brief. Also joining the brief as amicus parties is two nonprofits, the Wage Justice Center, a Los Angeles advocacy group for economic justice and fair pay, and REAL Women in Trucking Inc., a trade group that advocates for better working conditions (see http://www.realwomenintrucking.com).
  • The brief explains that New Prime, like other trucking firms, mostly now operates under a relatively new economic structure, the Lease-Operator model. The drivers lease their rigs directly from the company they work for, and often still may owe the company after they are paid for runs. The system often harms employees by misclassifying them as independent contractors.
  • “Because Lease-Operators lease a truck and pay for fuel, maintenance, and insurance, firms can potentially shift a significant amount of capital and operating costs to them, translating into much lower labor costs per unit of work. And, though Lease-Operators are often nominally free to choose what loads they haul, they are generally under greater pressure than employees to accept whatever work is offered to them and to spend more days working because they need to work many more hours per day and days per year to meet fixed expenses and then earn take-home pay at levels even close to what they would earn as company drivers.”
  • The FAA Sec. 1 exclusion prohibits courts from applying the statute to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. The brief says that the Court should include the employment arrangements of drivers like respondent OIiveira, who are misclassified by their employers within the definition of contracts of employment.
  • “Workers who must arbitrate their claims are 59% less likely to win than those who take their case to federal court and 38% less likely to win than workers litigating in state courts. The median award in mandatory arbitration is 21% of the median award in the federal courts and 43% of the median award in the state courts. [Citations omitted.] . . . Employers who misclassify employees stand to gain significantly by using forced arbitration to resolve disputes. This Court should not read the FAA in a way that allows them to require arbitration of disputes about the nature of employment in the industry.”

Higgins was a 2018 CPR Institute summer intern and is a student at Northeastern University School of Law. Bleemer edits Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, published by the CPR Institute with John Wiley & Sons (see http://www.cpradr.org/news-publications/alternatives and altnewsletter.com).

Amicus Preview: New Prime’s New Look at Mandatory Arbitration

By Sara Higgins

For the second year in a row, the Supreme Court is kicking off its new term with a focus on arbitration.

This year’s case, New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340—which will be argued tomorrow, the Court’s third day of arguments in the new term—focuses on whether the Federal Arbitration Act Sec. 1 exemption language from the act’s application for certain “contracts of employment” encompasses independent contractor agreements.

The case—an appeal from Oliveira v. New Prime Inc., 857 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2017)(available at https://bit.ly/2tEzlkr)—is potentially significant for many workers, though it isn’t attracting the attention of the 2017-2018 term’s kickoff argument, Epic Systems v. Lewis.  That case, decided in May, strongly backed the use of mandatory arbitration in conjunction with waivers of class arbitration and litigation processes in workplace disputes. See CPR Speaks blog coverage at https://bit.ly/2xPvFMk; see analysis at Russ Bleemer, “While Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Strategize, the Supreme Court’s Strong Backing Likely Will Grow Mandatory Processes,” 36 Alternatives 97 (July/August 2018)(available at https://bit.ly/2QsxLJ5).

The Court is still one justice short of the longstanding nine-judge bench, as the Senate continues its fight over the nomination of D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to succeed retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.

So a 4-4 outcome looms. The Court could order a rehearing after its decision to include Kavanaugh or another new justice if a party asks for it. See Court Rule 44, available at https://bit.ly/2NE6ouV.

Despite a shift to a “gig” economy for many workers, the number of independent contractors the New Prime case focuses on actually shrunk since about a decade ago, according to a report earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, to 6.9% of total U.S. employment in 2017, from 7.4% in 2005.

But the more than 10 million workers in these arrangements often see mandatory arbitration in their work agreements, as do millions more in so-called contingent employment situations which, depending on their agreements, may be covered by whatever the Court decides in New Prime.

The Court’s FAA backing in general employment cases in Epic Systems points to a similar decision in New Prime. But groups backing individual independent contractors are drawing a contrast, and argue that these workers should be treated different and not compelled to arbitrate against the companies with which they contract.

The case is summarized at Mark Kantor, “U.S. Supreme Court Grants Cert to Decide “Who Decides” “Independent Contractor” Employment Arbitration Case,” CPR Speaks blog (available at https://bit.ly/2RpwP9E), and Ginsey Varghese, “Supreme Court Will Decide Independent Contractor Arbitration Case,” 36 Alternatives 59 (April 2018)(available at https://bit.ly/2xW5MdN).

Below are highlights of amicus views filed in the case that back the petitioner, trucking company New Prime, along with statements about the filing party’s interest in the case.  The petitioners’ amicus supporters were required to file first. In a CPR Speaks post to follow shortly, we will examine the views of the respondent employees’ friend-of-the-Court supporters.

In support of petitioner New Prime seeking reversal:

  1. American Trucking Associations, Inc.
  • American Trucking Associations is an Arlington, Va.-based group that represents the trucking industry with members including companies and state organizations. ATA regularly represents “the common interests of the trucking industry in courts.” Many of its member companies contract with owner-operators who may enter into agreements to arbitrate disputes that arise during the course of their business relationship.
  • The amicus brief says that the First Circuit decision upends the expectation that the FAA will require motor carriers and their independent contractors to arbitrate any disputes that arise between them under their agreements, including in some cases the question whether a given dispute is arbitrable. Even where both sides agreed to arbitrate, “[t]his sweeping, idiosyncratic holding . . . would mean that owner-operators and carriers . . . could never expect those agreements to be enforced under the FAA. . . .” The decision undermines the federal policy favoring arbitration, to the detriment of motor carriers and independent owner-operators.
  1. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Society for Human Resource Management
  • The Chamber regularly files amicus curiae briefs in business cases, and has emphasized an anti-class action stance that incorporates a strong endorsement for individual arbitration in many Supreme Court and federal appellate court cases. The Chamber notes that its members and affiliates regularly rely on arbitration agreements in their contractual relationships. The SHRM, based in Alexandria, Va., represents 300,000 human resources professionals world-wide.
  • The brief says that independent contractors are not covered by the FAA Sec. 1 exemption from arbitration for “contracts of employment.” The brief says that participants on both sides in the “rapidly expanding” independent contractor market “rely upon the enforceability of agreements between businesses and independent contractors.”
  • If the decision below is allowed to stand, the brief says, “untold thousands of arbitration agreements would be called into question.”
  • Before the First Circuit decision, courts uniformly understood that FAA Sec. 1 “’contracts of employment’ means what it says: a contract between an employer and an employee—not an agreement with an independent contractor to perform work.”
  • The panel majority also failed to recognize that its interpretation is inconsistent with the context in which the Sec. 1 exemption was enacted—against the backdrop of other federal laws that recognize the long-established distinction between employees and independent contractors.
  1. Cato Institute
  • The conservative Washington, D.C., think tank focuses on free enterprise and often speaks out on the freedom to contract: “This case is important to Cato because it concerns the freedom of individuals and businesses to structure their economic relations through contractual agreement.”
  • Cato takes an historical approach to criticizing the appellate court decision and urging reversal. At the time of the FAA’s 1925 enactment, Cato wrote, contracts of employment referred to traditional employer–employee relationships, not independent contractor arrangements. Courts embraced the same distinction in applying the common law, as did the legal dictionaries and treatises of the time. The FAA’s text is plain: only certain agreements establishing traditional employer– employee relationships are exempt from the FAA’s scope—that is, transportation workers like the seamen and railway employees the statute names.
  • Statutory history, including contemporaneous state laws, confirms that the FAA’s contracts-of-employment exemption is limited to traditional employer– employee relationships, and doesn’t include independent contractors.
  1. New England Legal Foundation
  • NELF is a conservative free-market advocacy group in Boston.
  • It makes a statutory construction argument to restrict the FAA Sec. 1 exclusion from application for transportation workers to the enumerated seamen and railroad employees, and the phrase “any other class of workers” is narrowed by the “ejusdem generis” rule, meaning “of the same kind.” This means that undefined statutory terms should be construed consistently with their immediate context, not in isolation from that context.
  • This also means that statutory terms should be interpreted consistently with the statute’s overarching purpose—here, the FAA’s purpose to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. This purpose, coupled with the traditional statutory construction rules, mandates a narrow interpretation of the exemption contained within Section 1 of the FAA.
  • The NELF argues that, based on the immediate context of the phrase “contracts of employment” in 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1, the FAA’s purpose, and a plausible historical explanation for the exemption, “contracts of employment,” must define an employer-employee relationship, not an independent contractor relationship.
  • When interpreted properly, in its immediate context, “contracts of employment” modifies “seamen” and “railway employees,” which are the two prominent classes of transportation employees in the statute, not independent contractors.
  • The FAA’s overarching purpose counsels in favor of enforcing, not exempting, arbitration agreements under the FAA.
  • The FAA’s exemption for seamen and railroad workers allowed those employees to sue employers for work-related injuries under two contemporaneous statutes—“a liberalized tort remedy.” Notes the NELF, “Since independent contractors are not covered by the [those acts], Congress would have no reason to exempt them from the FAA’s scope.”

 Customized Logistics and Delivery Association

  • CLDA is a nonprofit Washington trade association that advocates for the interests of delivery companies. New Prime is of significant interest to CLDA because of the common industry practice of using independent owner-operators to transport cargo. These independent owner-operators are crucial to the structure of many of the carriers’ businesses, as they often provide the equipment and services carriers need to meet the changing demands of their businesses. Carriers frequently rely on arbitration provisions in their contracts with owner-operators to ensure that both parties have an efficient and cost-effective means through which they can resolve their disputes.
  • The CLDA relies on a general argument about arbitration’s effectiveness in urging the nation’s top Court to reverse.
  • The First Circuit decision, which applied an overly expansive interpretation of the FAA exception, would render unenforceable the arbitration agreements used by the largest segment of the CLDA membership—small operators with one to 50 operators and annual revenue below $1 million. That would leave both the carriers and owner-operators subject to the threat of lengthy and costly litigation.
  • The First Circuit decision “not only conflicts with the holdings of other federal courts, it directly conflicts” with the FAA’s central goal, “to ensure that arbitration agreements between contracting parties are enforceable by the parties, thereby safeguarding each party’s access to an efficient and cost-effective alternative to litigation.”
  • “In order to achieve these goals, the determination of ‘whether a contract qualifies as a ‘contract of employment’’ within the meaning of Section 1 of the FAA “requires a categorical approach that focuses solely on the words of the contract.” In re Swift Transportation Co. Inc., 830 F.3d 913, 920 (9th Cir. 2016)(Ikuta, J., dissenting).
  • The CLDA states that “[c]ourts should not be allowed to make factual determinations regarding the employment relationship of the contracting parties for two reasons. First, to do so deprives the parties of the benefits of arbitration by forcing the parties to expend valuable resources in a preliminary court battle. Second, a threshold factual determination means that the parties must essentially litigate the merits of the case. This in turn creates uncertainty as to the enforceability of the contract at execution.”

 

The author was a 2018 CPR Institute summer intern and is a student at Northeastern University School of Law. Alternatives editor Russ Bleemer assisted with research.

Epic Systems vs. #MeToo: What Now?

By Anna M. Hershenberg & Sara Higgins

Panelists and audience members came together to discuss workplace dispute resolution in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Epic Systems v. Lewis decision, analyzing the impact of mandatory arbitration and class actions waivers in light of the #MeToo movement as it continues to raise awareness of the pervasive culture of sexual harassment in the workplace, and society generally.

More than 100 in-house employment counsel from Fortune 500 companies, corporate defense attorneys, counsel from the plaintiff’s bar, as well as noted academics and neutrals attended a CPR Institute mini-symposium last month on the intersection of the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, No. 16-285 (May 21)(available at https://bit.ly/2rWzAE8) and the #MeToo movement.

The two-panel program discussed anticipated responses from state and federal legislatures and the plaintiff’s bar, the pros and cons of mandatory arbitration for employment disputes and what makes an employment disputes program successful in light of new, competing priorities from the perspective of all stakeholders.

The event started with a CPR members-only meeting of CPR’s Employment Disputes Committee members.  The meeting featured an exclusive interview with Anil K. Chaddha, Lead Counsel of Labor, Employment and Benefits at General Motors, about his experience with employment ADR throughout his career.

The program was then opened up to the public where CPR Institute Chief Executive Officer and President Noah Hanft led off by noting that CPR is working to bridge the gap between the two sides of these types of contentious discussions, and provides an avenue for discourse and cooperation between plaintiff’s counsel and corporate defense to tackle common issues.  [Follow CPR Events at www.cpradr.org/events-classes/upcoming, on Facebook and on Twitter].

The first panel, titled “Was Epic Systems Really Epic: Responses to Epic and the Next Battlegrounds for Mandatory Arbitration,” was moderated by Washington, D.C. based neutral Mark Kantor, who is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a member of CPR’s Panel of Distinguished Neutrals.

Kantor broke down the Epic Systems case and discussed both its immediate impact and far-reaching implications with panelists Christopher C. Murray, a shareholder in the Indianapolis office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., who co-chairs the firm’s Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group, and Fran L. Rudich, a partner in Rye Brook, N.Y.’s Klafter Olsen & Lesser.

In Epic Systems, Kantor explained, the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of class action waivers. He noted that, in writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch concluded:

The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written. While Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment, we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA—much less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the Arbitration Act. Because we can easily read Congress’s statutes to work in harmony, that is where our duty lies.

The panel largely agreed that, from the employer’s perspective, this holding decisively shifts the balance in favor of mandatory arbitration with class action waivers.

From the employees’ perspective, Rudich previewed the plaintiff’s bar’s anticipated response: plaintiffs’ attorneys will now make concerted efforts to bring multiple, individual cases against the same employer as a workaround to class action waivers.  Rudich warned, “be careful what you wish for,” because employers that seek to avoid class matters are going to get exactly that, numerous individual employment dispute arbitrations, potentially with repetitive evidentiary and discovery requests.

The panel also discussed the burgeoning federal and state laws taking aim at mandatory arbitration, including that more states are poised to adopt California-style private attorney general (“PAGA”) laws to supersede employment class actions.

After a brief intermission, a second panel, “Epic Systems v. #MeToo: What Now? Best Practices for Workplace Disputes Program Design,” which included Sarah E. Bouchard, a Philadelphia-based partner in Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; Lisa J. Banks, a named partner in Washington, D.C.’s Katz, Marshall & Banks LLP; Peter J. Cahill, Executive Director and Associate General Counsel at Ernst & Young LLP in New York; Diane Dann, Senior Vice President of Employment Law at Mastercard Inc. in Purchase, N.Y., and Kathleen McKenna, a partner at event host Proskauer, took the stage to focus on practical guidance for designing workplace disputes programs in the midst of the #MeToo movement.

The panelists discussed the legal, business and public relations implications for implementing employment disputes programs with mandatory arbitration in today’s climate.  They debated whether carving sexual harassment claims out of mandatory arbitration – like Microsoft, Uber and Lyft have done — is workable solution.

The employer-side and employee-side counsel agreed that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017’s conditioned use of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in sexual harassment suits may make it harder to settle these types of claims.  Because the law attempts to disincentive the use of NDAs without regard to the wishes of the victim, it forces the parties to find work-arounds to the law where (as often happens) victims do not wish to have these disputes resolved publicly.  The panelists explained that most victims don’t want to be Gretchen Carlson — the journalist and advocate who brought a 2016 sexual harassment complaint against the chairman of Fox News – but instead want to move on with their lives without calling attention to the situation.

Panelists seemed to agree generally that incorporating opt-in or opt-out clauses into workplace dispute resolution programs might be a useful tool for assault victims who aren’t interested in publicly calling out their attackers.

Some tips for preventing sexual harassment in the workplace that the panel discussed included thoroughly vetting new hires’ pasts; evaluating the corporate culture from the top down; training bystanders who witness harassment to report it, and serving less alcohol – and more water — at business functions.

The panelists concluded that the #MeToo movement is broader than just sexual harassment – it has challenged how women are treated in the workplace and how they are compensated.

The program was followed by a networking cocktail reception.

 

Hershenberg is Vice President of Programs and Public Policy at the CPR Institute. Higgins is a CPR Institute Summer 2018 intern.