Archive for the ‘Arbitrability’ Category

Latest FAA Section 1 Transportation Worker Exemption Development: SCOTUS Says “No” to Employer’s Bright-Line Rule Conditioning FAA Exemption Eligibility on Requiring Employee to Cross Border to be “Engaged in Commerce”

SCOTUS’S Most Recent FAA Section 1 Transportation Worker Exemption Case: Introduction

May was a big month for arbitration in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court decided the two Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) cases on its 2025 Term docket, one on subject matter jurisdiction, the other on the scope of the FAA Section 1 transportation workers exemption.

On May 14, 2026, the Court decided Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25-83, slip op. (U.S. May 14, 2026). Jules held that “a federal court with pre-existing jurisdiction over claims that it stayed pending arbitration under §3 can adjudicate a §9 or §10 motion even if that motion does not present, on its face, an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Jules, slip op. at 7. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the Court’s well-reasoned, 9-0 opinion in Jules. Professor Angela Downes, Professor Richard D. Faulkner, and the author discussed the then-pending Jules case in a March 27, 2026 YouTube video hosted by the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (“CPR”)’s Russ Bleemer and entitled Hot Topics: The Supreme Court’s March on Arbitration. The Arbitration Law Forum will be reporting more about Jules in the not-too-distant future.

But the focus of this post is the second of the two arbitration-law cases decided in May of this 2025 Term, Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, No. 24-935, 608 U.S. ___, slip op. (May 28, 2026), which concerned the scope of the FAA Section 1 transportation workers’ exemption. In Brock the Court unanimously held that a worker who transports goods only within one State may still belong to a class of workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce” if the transportation work they perform intrastate is part of the route the goods travel interstate. Brock, slip op. at 3. If so, then that worker’s arbitration agreement may under FAA Section 1 be exempt from FAA enforcement. Id.; 9 U.S.C. § 1.

Simple, right? Perhaps, but it underscores an important doctrinal point. Section 1 does not inquire whether a transportation worker actually crosses a state line. It does not ask whether the worker personally crosses a state line. And it does not ask whether the worker physically touched, loaded, unloaded, or otherwise interacted with a vehicle that crossed a state line. As interpreted by Brock, what Section 1 asks—though not in these precise words—is whether whether the transportation worker plays a “direct, active, and necessary” role in the interstate movement of goods, irrespective of where in the goods’ path of travel the worker played that role. Slip op. at 8. As Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch—who authored the opinion for a unanimous Court— aptly explained, applicability of the FAA does not turn on “a game of tag with vehicles” that cross state lines. Slip op. at 3. Continue Reading »

Significant Developments in U.S. State Arbitration Law: the Virginia Arbitration Fairness Act

May 8th, 2026 American Arbitration Association, Anti-Arbitration Statutes, Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Appoint Arbitrator, Application to Stay Arbitration, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Fees, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Arbitrator Duty to Disclose, Arbitrator Selection and Qualification Provisions, Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Choice-of-Law Provisions, Class and Collective Proceedings, Commonwealth of Virginia Courts, Conflict of Laws, Conflict-of-Law Rules, Consumer Arbitration, Default in Proceeding with Arbitration, Disinterestedness, Employment Arbitration, Evident Partiality, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Preemption of State Law, FAA Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Independence, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Mass Arbitration, Party-Appointed Arbitrators, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Post-Dispute Arbitration Agreements, Practice and Procedure, Predispute Arbitration Agreements, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, Section 2, Section 3 Default, State Arbitration Law, State Arbitration Statutes, State Courts, Statute of Limitations, Stay of Arbitration, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(2), Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Evident Partiality, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Virginia Arbitration Law No Comments »

Virginia Arbitration Fairness Act: Part I of a Two-Part Post

Virginia Arbitration Fairness Act

Virginia has enacted a targeted arbitration statute that is likely to generate FAA preemption litigation. Chapter 490, Senate Bill 227 (“SB 227”), signed into law on April 8, 2026, amends Virginia’s arbitration statute and adds a new Article 3 to Chapter 21 of Title 8.01, titled the “Arbitration Fairness Act.” 2026 Va. Acts ch. 490; Va. Code §§ 8.01-581.017-.021 (effective July 1, 2026). The Act “shall apply to all arbitration agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2026.” 2026 Va. Acts ch. 490, § 2.

The Act does not purport to prohibit consumer or employment arbitration. Nor does it seek to invalidate categorically pre-dispute arbitration agreements. It instead regulates “high-volume arbitration service providers,” prescribes arbitrator-selection procedures, imposes detailed disclosure obligations, restricts certain provider relationships, regulates invoices and fee payment, creates tolling rules, and authorizes civil remedies and State Corporation Commission penalties. It also adds a new state-law vacatur ground for an award “rendered by an arbitrator selected in violation of” the Act. Va. Code §§ 8.01-581.010(6), 8.01-581.017-.021. That last provision, combined with the disclosure requirements, is a significant consideration in, among other things, evident partiality disputes, and exceeding-powers challenges based on violation of the Act’s provisions concerning arbitrator selection. Continue Reading »

CPR’s March 27 Appellate Arbitration Video Panel: Jules, Flowers Foods, Goff, and Bruce

arbitration video CPR

The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (“CPR”) presented on March 27, 2026, the latest instalment of its long-running hot-topics in arbitration video series: “Hot Topics: The Supreme Court’s March on Arbitration.” Our good friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, moderated the presentation. The panelists were our other good friends and colleagues Professor Angela Downes and Richard D. Faulkner— plus the author, Philip J. Loree Jr.

This developments in arbitration video looked backward to the March 25, 2026, Supreme Court argument in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, No. 24-935 (U.S. argued Mar. 25, 2026), forward to the March 30 argument in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25-83 (U.S. argued Mar. 30, 2026), and sideways to certain consequential circuit decisions, including USAA Savings Bank v. Goff, No. 25-1730, slip op. (7th Cir. Mar. 19, 2026), and Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP, No. 25-5210, slip op. (6th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026). This was the eighteenth CPR arbitration video presentation this panel (or most of it), has given during the past four or five years.

The March 27, 2026, Video

The March 27 program is best understood not as a one-off webinar, but as the newest installment in a continuing conversation about where appellate arbitration law is heading. CPR’s December 2025 year-end program had already previewed Jules and Flowers Foods, the two U.S. Supreme Court arbitration-law cases the Court has thus far accepted this 2025 Term for review.

What the March 27, 2026, Video Shows About the Current State of Arbitration Law

This latest arbitration video shows that the four featured matters are different on their facts but closely related in what they reveal about the present state of arbitration law. None is a frontal assault on arbitration. Each instead concerns a doctrinal pressure point: where post-award litigation belongs, who falls within the FAA’s Section 1 transportation-worker exemption, when courts will conclude that arbitrators exceeded the bounds of the contract by not interpreting it, and how far Congress’s Ending Forced Arbitration Act (“EFAA”) carve-out extends once sexual-harassment or sexual-assault claims are pleaded together with other claims not covered by the EFAA.

In that respect, Jules remained the centerpiece. Jules asks whether a federal court that properly exercised federal question jurisdiction over an action, and then stayed that action pending arbitration under FAA Section 3, may later adjudicate post-award FAA motions without having a new and independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. The question is narrow only on the surface. In practical terms, it concerns whether a federal court that has federal question jurisdiction over the merits dispute, and pursuant to FAA Section 3 stays the litigation pending arbitration of the merits dispute, may, at the request of one of the parties, and without having a new and independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (such as diversity), complete the job after the award returns, or whether the parties must instead start over in state court. The CPR panel’s discussion came only days before the March 30 argument, which made the presentation a timely and useful preview of one of the Court’s most important FAA jurisdiction-related cases since Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022), and Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024).

Readers who view the March 27, 2026 presentation and the subsequent March 30, 2026 oral argument can see that the panelists’ comments were largely or entirely on the mark. CPR Speaks followed the argument with a very thoughtful same-day report, Supreme Court Hears Case on Federal Courts’ Powers to Confirm Arbitration Awards. A decision likely will issue before the close of the October 2025 Term in late June.

Flowers Foods concerns the scope of FAA Section 1’s transportation-worker exemption. But both Jules and Flowers Foods share an important feature: both concern where the FAA stops, and both therefore affect whether arbitration disputes will be resolved in court, in arbitration, or in some jurisdictional or procedural limbo between the two. The March 27 program accordingly framed Flowers not as an isolated exemption dispute, but as part of the Court’s broader and continuing effort to define the FAA’s boundaries with greater textual precision.

The panel also highlighted two significant circuit courts of appeals decisions that underscore how much important arbitration doctrine is shaped outside the U.S. Supreme Court. In Goff, the Seventh Circuit addressed a rare circumstance in which a court vacated an award on the ground that the arbitrator had, disregarded the parties’ contract and thus did not even arguably interpret it. That issue is significant not because courts often vacate awards on that basis, but because they rarely do. Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569, 572-73 (2013), made clear how narrow the path is for setting aside an award under FAA Section 10(a)(4) when the arbitrator is at least arguably construing the agreement. A decision like Goff therefore commands attention because it tests the line between genuine contract interpretation and an arbitrator’s substitution of her own notions of “[economic] justice” or “sound policy.” See id. at 569; Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 672, 675 (2010).

Bruce, in turn, is one of the most important circuit-court decisions construing the EFAA. The Sixth Circuit adopted what is sometimes called the entire-case rule: when a case includes an EFAA-covered sexual-harassment dispute, the statute renders the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to the whole case, not merely as to the EFAA-covered claims. See Bruce, slip op. at 17-19. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that reading, the decision is consequential because it gives the statute a broader practical effect than a claim-by-claim approach would have done. The March 27 CPR program usefully placed Bruce in the same conversation as Jules, Flowers Foods, and Goff because all four cases illuminate a common theme: appellate courts are increasingly defining arbitration law through technical yet consequential disputes over scope, forum, remedy, and statutory carve-outs, rather than through generalized debates about whether the federal policy in favor of arbitration should in a given case drive an arbitration-friendly outcome.

The presentation also illustrated the value of continuity among panelists. Professor Downes, Rick Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, and the author bring different vantage points to the discussion: academic, arbitral, appellate- and district-court practitioner, and editorial. Because the same group has returned repeatedly over several years, the programs have developed into something more useful than mere episodic commentary.

For readers of The Arbitration Law Forum, the key takeaway is straightforward. The March 27 program is worth watching not only for its discussion of the four featured cases, but also for the broader picture it paints. The doctrinal stakes of the Supreme Court’s arbitration docket are larger than they first appear. Lower federal courts continue to generate important arbitration law at a brisk pace. And many of the most consequential disputes now concern not whether arbitration will or should be enforced in the abstract, but how courts define the boundaries of arbitral power, arbitral forum, and arbitral exception. This eighteenth CPR presentation captures, in one discussion, several of the issues likely to shape arbitration-law practice in the months and years ahead.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration law, or arbitration-related litigation, then you may contact the author at pjl1@loreelawirm.com or +1 (516) 941-6094.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of The Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and arbitration-law matters. The Loree Law Firm’s website is https://loreelawfirm.com/.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

Arbitration and Sexual Harassment Disputes: The Sixth Circuit Adopts the EFAA Entire-Case Rule in Bruce v. Adams & Reese

March 23rd, 2026 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreement Invalid, Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Arbitration Law, EFAA - FAA Chapter 4, Employment Arbitration, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, FAA Chapter 4, FAA Section 2, FAA Section 3, FAA Section 4, FAA Section 401, FAA Section 402, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Gateway Disputes, Gateway Questions, Motion to Compel Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Predispute Arbitration Agreements, Section 4, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, Textualism, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit No Comments »

Introduction: Under the EFAA a Covered Sexual Harassment Dispute May Render the Entire Case Non-Arbitrable

Sexual Harassment Disputes and the EFAA | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CIrcuit The presence of a sexual harassment claim in a case featuring otherwise arbitrable claims may mean that Chapter 4 of the FAA renders the entire case non-arbitrable. In our recent overview of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “EFAA”), we identified the statute’s arguably most consequential open question: when a complaint includes a covered sexual-harassment dispute and non-covered claims, does the EFAA keep the whole lawsuit in court, or only the harassment claim, thereby effectively bifurcating the dispute-resolution process?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently answered that controversial open question, becoming the first U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to do so. In Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP, No. 25-5210, slip op. (6th Cir. Feb 25, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—in a 2-1 opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore— held that, under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “EFAA”), a single plausibly pleaded sexual-harassment claim can keep an entire mixed-claim employment case out of arbitration, even if the other non-harassment/non-assault claims would otherwise be arbitrable.

Bruce places the first federal-circuit-court-of-appeals imprimatur on the broad reading of Section 402(a), which several district courts have adopted, and which we flagged in our earlier article as a likely flashpoint. It also raises the stakes of the pleading-stage fight over whether the plaintiff has adequately alleged a covered sexual-harassment or sexual-assault dispute.

In Bruce, adequate pleading was linked to arbitrability: because the plaintiff plausibly pleaded a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, the employer could not compel arbitration of her ADA claims, which would otherwise have been arbitrable.

What Happened in Bruce

Bruce worked in a law-firm liquor practice that moved from Firm A to Continue Reading »

The EFAA—Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act: A Practical Overview

January 5th, 2026 Anti-Arbitration Statutes, Applicability of the FAA, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreement Invalid, Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Businessperson's FAQ Guide to the Federal Arbitration Act, Delegation Agreements, Delegation Provision, Drafting Arbitration Agreements, Employment Arbitration, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, FAA Chapter 4, FAA Section 1, FAA Section 2, FAA Section 401, FAA Section 402, Limitations on Arbitrability, Post-Dispute Arbitration Agreements, Practice and Procedure, Predispute Arbitration Agreements, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Disputes, Uncategorized, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Comments Off

Introduction

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “EFAA”) is one of the most significant statutory changes to federal arbitration law in decades. Codified as Chapter 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402, the EFAA limits the enforceability of pre-dispute arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual assault or sexual harassment.

Narrow in subject matter but broad in consequence, it affects domestic and international arbitration agreements, overrides delegation clauses, alters who decides arbitrability, and raises difficult questions about timing, scope, and case management. Federal courts—including circuit courts of appeals—have already begun to grapple with these issues, and more appellate guidance will likely be forthcoming.

This post provides a high-level overview of (1) what the EFAA says, (2) how it works in practice, and (3) the key issues courts have addressed so far, without extensive case-by-case discussion and analysis.

What the EFAA Says

EFAA Covered Agreements and Covered Disputes

The EFAA applies to two types of contractual provisions:

A “Predispute arbitration agreement,” which is an “agreement to arbitrate a dispute that had not yet arisen when the agreement was made,” 9 U.S.C. § 401(1); and
A “Predispute joint-action waiver,” which is an “agreement, whether or not part of a predispute arbitration agreement, that would prohibit, or waive the right of, one of the parties to the agreement to participate in a joint, class, or collective action in a judicial, arbitral, administrative, or other forum, concerning a dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement[,]” id. § 401(2).

The statute applies only if the dispute qualifies as either a “sexual assault dispute,” which is defined by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2246 or similar state or tribal law, id. § 401(3); or a “sexual harassment dispute,” which is defined broadly as a dispute “relating to conduct alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law,” id. § 401(4).

The definitions of sexual harassment and assault are intentionally expansive and incorporate the relevant substantive law governing the claim.

EFAA Operative Rule

Section 402(a) is the statute’s principal substantive command: Continue Reading »

First American Title Arbitration Decision: Tenth Circuit Says Nonsignatory Escrow Agent Can’t Compel Arbitration

September 23rd, 2025 Appellate Practice, Application to Compel Arbitration, Application to Stay Arbitration, Arbitrability, Arbitrability - Equitable Estoppel, Arbitrability - Nonsignatories, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Drafting Arbitration Agreements, Estoppel, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 1, FAA Section 2, FAA Section 3, FAA Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Formation of Arbitration Agreement, Intended Beneficiaries, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, Section 2, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Section 4, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, Third-Party Beneficiaries, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Waiver of Arbitration Comments Off

The Tenth Circuit’s First American Title arbitration decision, Fucci v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 24-4051, slip op. (10th Cir. Sep 10, 2025), clarifies the limits of arbitration enforcement by nonsignatories under Florida and Ohio law, and recognizes that the arbitration agreement itself may further restrict that enforcement.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U. S. 624, 631 (2009), and as we discussed in a 2009 post, “traditional principles of state law allow a contract to be enforced by or against nonparties to the contract through assumption, piercing the corporate veil, alter ego, incorporation by reference, third-party beneficiary theories, [and] waiver and estoppel.” 556 U.S. at 631. The First American Title arbitration decision’s nonsignatories argued for enforcement of the arbitration agreement on the ground they were allegedly parties, third-party beneficiaries, or agents. They also sought enforcement under equitable estoppel principles. But the Court rejected all of their arguments and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion for an order staying litigation and compelling arbitration.

The First American Title Arbitration Decision: Background

Real estate investors bought interests in Ohio and Florida event-center projects through Purchase and Sale Agreements (“PSAs”) Continue Reading »

Flores Second Circuit Arbitration Decision Rejects the NFL’s Constitution’s “Arbitration” Provision, Saying it is “Arbitration in Name Only”

August 29th, 2025 Applicability of the FAA, Application to Compel Arbitration, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitrator Selection and Qualification Provisions, Disinterestedness, Effective Vindication Doctrine, Evident Partiality, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Grounds for Vacatur, Independence, LMRA Section 301, Questions of Arbitrability, Section 10, Section 4, Sports Arbitration, Unconscionability, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Vacate Award | 10(a)(2), Vacate Award | Evident Partiality 1 Comment »

Flores Second Circuit Arbitration Decision

The Flores Second Circuit Arbitration Decision and the Scope of the FAA

Introduction

The Flores Second Circuit arbitration decision, Flores v. N.Y. Football Giants, Inc., No. 23-1185-cv, slip op. (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2025), may be a watershed moment in federal arbitration law. In rejecting the National Foot Ball League (“NFL”)’s attempt to compel arbitration, the court held that the league’s dispute resolution provision—vesting unilateral authority in the Commissioner, an executive officer of one of the arbitration opponent’s adversaries —was “arbitration in name only” and thus unprotected by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Beyond its immediate implications for Brian Flores’s racial discrimination claims, the ruling could (and should) reshape how courts evaluate the independence, neutrality, and fundamental fairness of dispute resolution agreements that are alleged to be FAA-governed arbitration agreements, particularly in employment and sports law contexts.

The Flores Second Circuit decision, authored by United States Senior Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes, may have far reaching consequences concerning the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, the enforceability of dispute resolution agreements, and the viability and applicability of the “effective vindication” doctrine. It also has the potential to—and should—change for the better the legal landscape governing post-award evident partiality challenges. (For discussions of evident partiality see here, here, here, here, and here.)

In Flores the Court held NFL coach Brian Flores was not required to arbitrate his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 racial discrimination claims against the NFL, the New York Football Giants, the Denver Broncos, and the Houston Texans. Flores agreed to the NFL’s dispute resolution scheme, which was set forth in Constitution and Bylaws of the National Football League (the “NFL Constitution”) and incorporated by reference into two of Flores’s club-specific employment agreements.

That NFL dispute resolution scheme purported to designate the NFL Commissioner— who runs the league and works for the franchise owners Flores accused of race discrimination—as the arbitrator. The Second Circuit held that “Flores’s agreement under Continue Reading »

New York’s Highest Court Rules that Arbitrator’s Statutory Treble Damages Award against Town Should have been Vacated

April 7th, 2025 Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Practice, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Vacated, Challenging Arbitration Awards, CPLR Article 75, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, New York Appellate Division, New York Court of Appeals, New York State Courts, Petition to Vacate Award, Policy, Public Policy, Punitive Damages, Questions of Arbitrability, Remedies, Sovereign Immunity, Substantive Arbitrability, Treble Damages, Uncategorized, Vacate, Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Public Policy Comments Off

Introduction

Under New York law, can an arbitrator lawfully award statutory treble damages against the State or its political subdivisions?

New York prohibits punitive damage awards in suits against the State and its political subdivisions, including of course, towns. See Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 386 (1987). Public funds are available only to compensate for damages suffered because the key “justifications for punitive damages—punishment and deterrence—are hardly advanced when applied to a governmental unit.” Sharapata v Town of Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332, 338 (1982).

This prohibition on punitive damage awards is also based on the precept that the sovereign’s liability extends no farther than its waiver of immunity. As the New York Court of Appeals—New York’s highest Court—said in Sharapata, “we hold today that the waiver of sovereign immunity effected by section 8 of the Court of Claims Act does not permit punitive damages to be assessed against the State or its political subdivisions.” 56 N.Y.2d at 334.

But assuming treble damages are punitive in nature, can an arbitrator’s award imposing punitive damages be vacated because it violates New York public policy? Recently before the Court, in Matter of Rosbaugh v. Town of Lodi, 2025 NY Slip Op 01406 at *1 (N.Y. Mar. 13, 2025), was the question whether an arbitrator’s treble damages award against the Town of Lodi (the “Town”), made under New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 861, was punitive in nature and thus contrary to New York public policy. The Court said the answer is yes and held the award must be vacated.

One might expect that Rosbaugh would have discussed briefly New York arbitration law authorizing vacatur of awards that violate public policy but it did not. The focus of the decision was instead on whether the Court could, without violating New York public policy, impose on and enforce against the Town any judgment imposing an RPAPL 861 treble damage remedy, irrespective of whether the judgment resulted or would result from: (a) a plenary, judicial trial on the merits; or (b) a summary proceeding to enter judgment on an arbitration award imposing that remedy. Because the prohibition applies to any suit against the state or its subdivisions, whether on the merits or to confirm an arbitration award, it was arbitration neutral and it did not necessarily require a meaningful discussion of arbitration law to hold that the award had to be vacated.

But perhaps the Court downplayed the arbitration law aspects of the decision because it thought doing otherwise might inadvertently encourage more public-policy challenges to the confirmation of arbitration awards than the law warrants. The line between what may be an egregious mistake of law—which is ordinarily not subject to New York Civ. Prac. L. & R. (“CPLR”) Article 75 review—and a violation of an important New York public policy—which can be a basis for vacatur of an award, see Associated Teachers of Huntington, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 33 N.Y.2d 229, 235-36 (1973)— can sometimes be blurry. The Court may have wanted to downplay arbitration law to avoid encouraging award challengers from unnecessarily, and erroneously, seeking vacatur of awards based on unreviewable legal errors which, while serious, do not amount to violations of “so strong a public policy as to require vacating an award. . . .” 33 N.Y.2d at 231-32.

Also left undiscussed was how New York arbitration law provided an independent, alternative ground on which the courts might have vacated the award. Under New York arbitration law—but not the Federal Arbitration Act—arbitrators to not have the power, and cannot be empowered by agreement, to award punitive damages. See Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354, 357, 359-60 (1976); see also Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 62-64 (1995) (discussing difference between New York law and the FAA concerning arbitrability of punitive damages).

In Rosbaugh, the party who challenged the treble damage award was a municipality, which had a strong, sovereign-immunity-based public policy argument against the assessment of punitive damages. But had the Town been a private person, then it would, it seems to the author, have had at least a basis to argue that for the reasons explained by the Court in Rosbaugh, the treble-damage award had to be vacated under Garrity because of its punitive nature.

Background and Procedural History

Plaintiffs were landowners who owned land abutting one side of a dirt road in upstate New York. They had trees on their property, some of which apparently overhung the road, which was owned and maintained by the Town. The Town claimed that the trees were interfering with the right-of-way.

Presumably concluding that the trees were within the right-of-way, the Town proceeded to hire a tree service company to remove or trim them The company trimmed or cut down 55 trees that were on the plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff sued the Town and the company seeking, among other remedies, treble damages under RPAPL 861(1).

Ultimately the parties agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator found for the plaintiffs, awarding three-times the “‘stumpage value’ of the damaged or destroyed trees.” 2025 NY Slip Op 01406 at *1 (quotations in original). The trial court upheld the award and a divided panel of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed.

New York’s highest court said “[t]he sole issue on appeal is whether treble damages under RPAPL 861 are punitive in nature , making them unavailable in a suit against a municipality.” 2025 NY Slip Op 01406 at *1. It concluded that they were punitive and that the award had to be vacated. See 2025 NY Slip Op 01406 at *3.

Whether Statutory Treble Damages are Punitive Depends on the Intent of the Legislature

As a general rule, treble damages are considered to be punitive but the Continue Reading »

Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America: Fourth Circuit Says Arbitrator gets to Decide which of Two Contracts’ Conflicting Dispute Resolution Provisions Applies

January 27th, 2025 Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreement Invalid, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Delegation Provision, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Motion to Compel Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Richard D. Faulkner, Section 2, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Section 4, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off

Introduction: Delegation Provisions and Modern Perfection

Delegation Provisions | Arbitrability Challenge Delegation provisions clearly and unmistakably assign arbitrability determinations to arbitrators, which means they provide for arbitrators to decide arbitrability-related disputes.

Coinbase v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024) set forth the allocation of power between courts and arbitrators for four “orders” of arbitrability-related disputes:

A “first order” dispute is “[a] contest over the merits of the dispute[,]” the determination of which “depends on the applicable law and relevant facts.” 602 U.S. at 148 (quotation omitted).
A “second order dispute” concerns “whether [the parties] agreed to arbitrate the merits” of the first order dispute. 602 U.S. at 148 (quotation omitted).
A “third order dispute” concerns “who should have the primary power to decide” a second order dispute.” 602 U.S. at 149.
A “fourth order” dispute is one where there are “multiple agreements that conflict as to the third-order question of who decides arbitrability.” 602 U.S. at 149.

Coinbase held that fourth-order disputes are for the courts, which are to decide them based on “traditional contract principles.” 602 U.S. at 149.

In a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision, Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America, No. 23-1965, slip op. (4^th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025), the Court was faced with what appeared to be a “fourth-order” dispute as defined by Suski. The question was who gets to decide arbitrability questions when one contract contained a broad arbitration agreement and a delegation provision and the other a clause that expressly contemplated judicial resolution of disputes.

The problem was that Suski was not decided until briefing in both the district court and the Fourth Circuit was complete, and the arbitration challengers’ argument centered on the scope of the delegation provisions, not on whether the contracts contemplating judicial resolution of disputes superseded the delegation provisions.

The Suski fourth-order dispute issue was first raised in a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter the challenger submitted once Suski was decided. Because the argument had not been raised in the parties’ appellate briefs, the Court would not hear it, and ruled that, under the terms of the delegation provisions, the arbitrator gets to decide whether the dispute was arbitrable.

Background

Over a five-year period a bank issued to each of six plaintiffs two Continue Reading »

International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Interviews Professor Angela Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. about the Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment Ninth Circuit Mass Arbitration Decision

November 13th, 2024 Appellate Practice, Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Compel Arbitration, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitration Agreement Invalid, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Class Arbitration Waivers, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, CPR Alternatives, CPR Video Interviews, Delegation Agreements, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 2, FAA Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Mass Arbitration, New Era ADR, Petition to Compel Arbitration, Philip J. Loree Jr., Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Professor Angela Downes, Professor Downes, Repeat Players, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, Section 2, Section 4, The Loree Law Firm, Unconscionability, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1 Comment »

CPR Interview

Heckman

Do you want to learn more about the Heckman mass arbitration case?

As readers may know, over the last four years or so, our friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) (“CPR Alternatives”), has hosted presentations about significant arbitration-law developments (principally in the United States Supreme Court) that feature interviews of our friends and colleagues: Professor Angela Downes, University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law Professor of Practice and Assistant Director of Experiential Education; arbitrator, mediator, arbitration-law attorney, and former judge, Richard D. Faulkner; and yours truly, Loree Law Firm principal, Philip J. Loree Jr. (See, e.g., here, here, here, and here.) These interviews are posted on CPR’s YouTube channel, @CPRInstituteOnline.

On Monday, November 11, 2024, Russ interviewed Professor Downes, Rick and me about the Ninth Circuit’s recent mass-arbitration decision in Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, No. 23-55770, slip op. (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024). The video is here.

Heckman

The Heckman case centered around unusual mass-arbitration rules promulgated and administered by New Era ADR, which among many other things, included a broad delegation provision, which delegated to the arbitrator the authority to decide the validity of the parties’ arbitration agreement. The parties’ online ticket purchase agreement terms (the “Terms”) provided for arbitration pursuant to the New ERA Rules, which in the Heckman case meant New Era’s Rules for Expedited/Mass Arbitration proceedings.

Plaintiffs commenced in 2022 a putative class action against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster LLC, alleging that the companies violated the Sherman Act by engaging in anticompetitive practices. Those defendants moved to compel arbitration, but the district court denied the motion, holding that the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement were procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California law.

Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote a very interesting concurring opinion in Heckman in which he said he would have decided the case solely on the ground that the arbitration scheme violated the Discover Bank Rule, which was not preempted by the FAA because the scheme was not arbitration as envisioned by the FAA in 1925. This concurring opinion also discussed in some detail the conflict of interest that arises when arbitrators deciding arbitrability under a delegation clause conclude, or have reason to conclude, that an arbitration provider’s scheme—it’s business model—is unenforceable, pitting the arbitrator’s financial interest in continued employment against his or her neutral-decision-making interests.

Russ, Rick, Angela, and I discuss various aspects pertinent to the Heckman decision in the interview and identify issues that are likely to arise in future cases following the decision.
As always, we express our gratitude to Russ and CPR for hosting these interviews, and, along with Angela and Rick, look forward to contributing to future programs hosted by CPR.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in insurance or reinsurance-related and other commercial and business matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

Archive for the ‘Arbitrability’ Category

Latest FAA Section 1 Transportation Worker Exemption Development: SCOTUS Says “No” to Employer’s Bright-Line Rule Conditioning FAA Exemption Eligibility on Requiring Employee to Cross Border to be “Engaged in Commerce”

SCOTUS’S Most Recent FAA Section 1 Transportation Worker Exemption Case: Introduction

CPR’s March 27 Appellate Arbitration Video Panel: Jules, Flowers Foods, Goff, and Bruce

The March 27, 2026, Video