Alerts

Supreme Court Overturns "Wholly Groundless" Exception to Contractual Delegations of Arbitrability Decisions to Arbitrators

Alerts / January 10, 2019

On Jan. 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision regarding an important procedural issue under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272, it held that under the FAA, courts must enforce provisions in arbitration agreements delegating threshold questions of whether claims are subject to arbitration to the arbitrator. In so doing, the Court overruled a rule that allowed federal courts to decide themselves whether claims were subject to arbitration, regardless of contract language, if they determined the argument for arbitrability was “wholly groundless.” The Court thus eliminated one of the bases some courts have relied upon to avoid the enforcement of arbitration provisions they do not like.

The Schein case was brought by a dental equipment distributor against other manufacturers and distributors alleging violations of federal and state antitrust law and seeking both money damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties provided for arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) of any dispute arising under or related to the agreement, except for, among other things, actions seeking injunctive relief. Invoking the FAA, the defendant asked the district court to refer the matter to arbitration. The plaintiff, however, argued that the dispute was not subject to arbitration because its complaint sought injunctive relief, at least in part.

That triggered further arguments as to whether the court or the arbitrator should determine whether the claims were subject to arbitration. The defendant contended that the AAA rules incorporated into the contract gave the arbitrator the explicit power to resolve arbitrability questions; therefore, the arbitrator ‒ not the court ‒ should decide whether the dispute was arbitrable. The plaintiff countered that the argument for arbitration in this instance was “wholly groundless,” so the district court could itself resolve the threshold arbitrability question. The district court accepted the “wholly groundless” argument and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

In an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh (his first majority opinion), the Court concluded that the so-called “wholly groundless” exception adopted by the Fifth Circuit and other lower courts was inconsistent with the FAA. The justices agreed that arbitration is a contractual process that the parties can frame in the manner they choose, including on issues of jurisdiction. When a contract allows arbitrators to decide whether a dispute can be resolved through arbitration, “a court may not override the contract.” Specifically, if a contract provides that an arbitrator may decide whether a dispute is subject to arbitration, only the arbitrator may decide the issue. In rejecting the “wholly groundless” exception, the Court noted that “we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President” and that under the FAA’s plain language, “[w]hen the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties’ decision as embodied in the contract.”

The Schein decision’s elimination of the “wholly groundless” exception prevents claimants from avoiding arbitration by taking the threshold issue of arbitrability to the courts when the arbitration agreement delegates threshold arbitrability decisions to arbitrators. The ruling bolsters companies’ ability to control the arbitration process for resolving disputes with customers or other businesses.

Generally, companies prefer to arbitrate claims because arbitration may be cheaper and faster than litigation in court. Court litigation tends to be longer and more expensive, and carries a greater risk of hefty damages awards by juries, who lack the legal sophistication and experience of an arbitrator. While arbitral decisions have a strong presumption of finality and are subject to only limited judicial review, many companies prefer arbitration based on their experience that it will be less expensive, more predictable and less susceptible to error than results obtained in the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision gives the contracting parties greater control over the process and eliminates one potentially costly side step into court.

Notably, however, the Court left open the question of whether the arbitration agreement in the case in fact delegated the decision to arbitrate to the arbitrator, remanding that issue to the Fifth Circuit. In doing so, the Court reminded the Fifth Circuit that courts “should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so.” (Slip op. at 8, quoting First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995)). This remand is significant because the arbitration agreement at issue did not itself contain an express delegation of arbitrability decisions to the arbitrator. Rather, it provided only that “any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement ... shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.” Those rules in turn delegate arbitrability decisions to the arbitrator; many courts have concluded that a contract’s incorporation of the AAA’s rules constitutes “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties delegated arbitrability decisions to the arbitrator. The Fifth Circuit may have an opportunity on remand to examine whether this type of implied delegation satisfies the FAA.

Authorship credit: Lars H. Fuller, Patrick T. Lewis and Gregory V. Mersol

Baker & Hostetler LLP publications are intended to inform our clients and other friends of the firm about current legal developments of general interest. They should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information contained in these publications without professional counsel. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you written information about our qualifications and experience.

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
Standing in Uncertainty: Spokeo Three Years Later
By Kenneth G. Prabucki
May 21, 2019
In 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, holding that even when Congress has granted parties a statutory right, a procedural violation of that right will not by itself satisfy the “concrete harm” requirement...
Read More ->
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
Supreme Court: Express Consent Required for Class Arbitration
May 14, 2019
On April 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an ambiguous arbitration agreement does not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that parties agreed to class arbitration. In Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to...
Read More ->
Financial Services Blog
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of the FDCPA as It Relates to Nonjudicial Foreclosures
By Yameel L. Mercado Robles
April 30, 2019
In Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the circuit split on whether those engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are subject to all of the requirements and prohibitions of the Fair Debt Collection...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
Recent Decisions Don't Provide Useful Guidance on Tests for the FAA Exemption of Transportation Workers
By John B. Lewis
April 29, 2019
Sometimes being right is not a virtue, especially when it comes to the Federal Arbitration Act § 1 exemption. We predicted uncertainty after the New Prime v. Oliveira decision and got it. See our Jan. 17, 2019, blog post on the exemption...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
SCOTUS Reverses Ninth Circuit on Proper Bases for Class Arbitrations
By John B. Lewis
April 25, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that arbitration agreements must provide a “contractual basis for concluding that the part[ies] agreed to [class arbitration].” Reversing the Ninth Circuit, Chief Justice John Roberts found...
Read More ->