Today’s segment of the Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration ACT FAQ Guide focuses on the nuts and bolts of applying to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
What Gateway Disputes do Sections 2, 3, and 4, Address, and How do they Address them?
How does Section 3 Work in Practice?
After discussing Section 4 generally and dividing the statute into five parts, this segment addresses an FAQ relating to the first of those five parts: “Under Section 4, who May Petition what Court when and for what?” Future segments will address FAQs relating to the other four parts of Section 4.
Application to Compel Arbitration: Section 4 and its Component Parts
Section 4, which sometimes used in tandem with Section 3, but which is available as an independent remedy when a party simply refuses to arbitrate without attempting to litigate the allegedly arbitrable dispute, authorizes courts to compel parties to arbitrate the disputes they’ve promised to submit to arbitration.
Section 4 consists of 386 words jammed into a single paragraph and is thus a little daunting at first blush. It is easier to digest and follow if we divide it into subparagraphs or subsections, which we do below. The subsection letters and captions in bold are not part of the statute, but are added for ease of reference and clarity:
Back in 2009 the Author wrote an article on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), which held “that a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.” 559 U.S. at 274. (See Loree Reins. & Arb. L. Forum Posthere.)
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court decision that erroneously applied the Pyett clear and unmistakable standard to the question whether an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) was mandatory or permissive. Finding that the CBA imposed mandatory arbitration, the Second Circuit ruled that the clear and unmistakable standard applied only to the question whether the Employee’s statutory claims were within the scope of the CBA’s arbitration agreement (the “Arbitration Agreement”), and not to the mandatory versus permissive question. Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare Servs. LLC, ___ F.3d ____, No. 18-0651, slip op. at *8-10 (2d Cir. July 2, 2019).
Applying ordinary contract principles to the question whether the Arbitration Agreement was mandatory or permissive, the Court held that it was mandatory. Slip op. at *10-13. Applying Pyett‘s clear and unmistakable standard to the scope question, it held that the Employee’s statutory claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York’s Labor Law (“NYLL”) were within the scope of the arbitration clause. Slip op. at *13-14.
Finally, the Court held that the arbitration clause did not deny the Employee of due process of law, rejecting the Employee’s argument that it was deprived of due process because it did not personally participate in the selection of the arbitrator named in the arbitration clause. Slip op. at *14-16.
Background
The Employer is a provider of home health care services which employs health and personal care workers that serve elderly clients. The Employee was a member of that staff.
The Employee was required to join a Union of home
health care workers (the “Union”).
At or about the time when the Employee began work for
Employer, the Union and Employer entered into a collective bargaining agreement
(the “CBA”).
The CBA contained an “Adjustment of Disputes” provision (the
“Arbitration Agreement”) that provided, in pertinent part:
B. The parties [the Union and Attending] further agree a goal of this Agreement is to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local wage hour law and wage parity statutes. Accordingly, to ensure the uniform administration and interpretation of this Agreement in connection with federal, state, and local wage-hour and wage parity statutes, all claims brought by either the Union or Employees, asserting violations of or arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act . . . , New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, or New York Labor Law (collectively, the “Covered Statutes”), in any manner, shall be subject exclusively, to the grievance and arbitration procedures described below.
1) The statute of limitations to file a grievance concerning the Covered Statutes shall be consistent with the applicable statutory statute of limitations. All such claims if not resolved in the grievance procedure, including class grievances filed by the Union, or mediation as described below shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration before Elliott Shriftman. . . .
. . . .
4) In the event an Employee has requested, in writing, that the Union process a grievance alleging a violation of the Covered Statutes and the Union declines to process a grievance regarding alleged violations of the Covered Statutes, through the grievance/mediation process or to arbitration following the conclusion of mediation, an Employee solely on behalf of himself/herself, may submit their individual claim to mediation, or following the conclusion of mediation, to arbitration. . . .
Slip op. at *3-4 (quoting Arbitration Agreement; emphasis supplied by Court).
On her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Employee sued Employer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that Employer had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and provisions of New York’s Labor Law by, among other things, “willfully fail[ing] to pay its workers overtime and spread-of-hours pay. . . .” Slip op. at *4-5.
The Employer moved to compel arbitration, but the
district court denied the motion. The district court ruled that the CBA did not
require that the Employee’s claims be resolved in arbitration.
The district court reached that conclusion on two alternative grounds. First, the district court ruled that the arbitration agreement “violated the Employer’s due process rights due process rights because the arbitrator had been preselected by the Union and [the Employer] without any input from [the Employee].” Slip op. at *5.
Second, and in any event, the district court held that the arbitration agreement was not mandatory, and that accordingly, the Employer was entitled to bring its claims in federal district court. To that end the district court determined that the Arbitration Agreement was “‘at best ambiguous,’ and does not satisfy the clear and unmistakable test applicable to the assessment of purported waivers of union members’ right to bring statutory claims in court when such waivers are part of a collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration provisions.” Slip op. at *5 (quoting district court decision; other quotation omitted).
The Employer appealed.
The Second
Circuit’s Decision
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007
The Second Circuit began by explaining that motions to compel arbitration “ordinarily” present courts with four questions:
(1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; (2) the “scope” of the arbitration agreement; (3) whether the plaintiff’s federal statutory claims are “nonarbitrable”; and (4) if some, but not all of the claims in the case are arbitrable, whether to stay the balance of the proceedings pending arbitration.
Slip op. at *6.
But this case presented only the first two questions—whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, and if so, what they agreed to arbitrate. Slip op. at *6.
The “clear and unmistakable” standard for determining whether parties to a collective-bargaining agreement agreed to arbitrate statutory claims was a standard that applied only to the second question, that is, the scope of the arbitration agreement. Slip op. at *8-10. According to the Second Circuit, “[t]he district court framed the sole relevant inquiry as whether ‘[a] clause purporting to require arbitration of a [FLSA] claim that is contained in a collective bargaining agreement’ clearly and unmistakably requires arbitration.” Slip op. at *8 (quoting district court decision).
The district court therefore conflated the first two questions and applied the “clear and unmistakable” standard to both. The district court erred in doing so, said the Second Circuit, because “the clear and unmistakable standard does not reflect disfavor of union-negotiated arbitration agreements[,]” but instead “ensures that employees’ right to bring statutory claims in court is not waived by operation of confusing, “very general” arbitration clauses[,]” which, for example, might be reasonably construed to be limited to claims concerning the construction or application of a collective bargaining agreement, even though they might also be reasonably construed to encompass both contract and statutory claims. Slip op. at *9 (citations and quotations omitted).
The Second Circuit said “we ask not whether the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate, but whether, once we have established that an agreement exists, that agreement clearly and unmistakably encompasses the plaintiff’s statutory claims.” Slip op. at *9-10. “The clear and unmistakable standard,” the Court explained, is “therefore. . . specific to the scope question and has no bearing on whether there is an agreement to arbitrate in the first instance.” Slip op. at *10.
Having clarified how the clear and unmistakable standard is supposed to be applied, the Court addressed whether the arbitration agreement was permissive or mandatory, and if mandatory, whether statutory claims were clearly and unmistakably within its scope. The Court held that the arbitration agreement was mandatory and clearly and unmistakably encompassed the statutory claims. Slip op. at *9.
Collective Bargaining Agreement’s Arbitration Clause is Mandatory
The Court
concluded that “[t]he Union was legally authorized to negotiate collective
bargaining agreements on [the Employee’s] behalf[,]” citing 29 U.S.C. § 159(a),
which provides that unions “selected for purposes of collective bargaining by
the majority of the employees shall be the exclusive representatives of all the
employees. . . for the purposes of collective bargaining. . . .” 29 U.S.C. §
159(a). The Employee was, accordingly, bound by the CBA, including the Arbitration
Agreement.
The Court next determined that the Arbitration Agreement, when construed as a whole, unambiguously imposed mandatory arbitration on the Employee, not simply an option to arbitrate or litigate. That provision, said the Court, “states that its goal is to ‘ensure the uniform administration and interpretation of [the CBA],’ and that the means by which it will achieve that goal is to require that all claims under the Covered Statutes, brought by the Union or employees, ‘be subject exclusively . . . to the grievance and arbitration procedures described below.” Slip op. at *11 (quoting Arbitration Agreement; emphasis added by Court). The Provision further “states that ‘all [claims under the Covered Statutes,] if not resolved in the grievance procedure, . . . shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration.’” Slip op. at *11-12. “On its face,” said the Court, “this language simply does not allow an employee to choose to proceed in a judicial forum.” Slip op. at *12.
The Court explained why it concluded the district court’s interpretation of the arbitration agreement was incorrect. The district court had “focused on subsection (4) of [the Arbitration Agreement][,]” which “states that where an employee has requested that ‘the Union process a grievance alleging a violation of the Covered Statutes,’ but the Union has declined to process that grievance, the employee ‘may submit [this] individual claim to mediation, or following the conclusion of mediation, to arbitration.’” Slip op. at *12 (quoting Arbitration Agreement; emphasis supplied by Court). The district court interpreted “‘may’. . . to mean that employees can ‘choose whether to arbitrate’ or pursue their claims in court.” Slip op. at *12 (quoting district court decision).
But the Second Circuit disagreed. Subsection (4) of the Dispute Resolution Provision, said the Court, “is best read as clarifying that when the Union declines to process particular grievances on employees’ behalf, aggrieved employees have two options[:]” “They ‘may’ either (1) submit their claims to meditation and arbitration or (2) abandon the claims entirely.” Slip op. at *12.
The Court said that its interpretation of “may” “makes sense of the provision in isolation but also in the context of the entire agreement.” Slip op. at *12-13 (quotation and citations omitted).
Interpreting “may” differently “is to bring subsection (4) into conflict with the rest of Article 8(B), which. . . manifestly reflects an intent to require arbitration.” Slip op. at *13. The district court’s interpretation, said the Court, “makes little sense in light of [subsection 1 of the Arbitration Agreement]’s requirement that ‘all [claims under the Covered Statutes,] if not resolved in the grievance procedure . . . shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration” Slip op. at *13 (quoting Arbitration Agreement; emphasis supplied by Court).
Having concluded the arbitration agreement was mandatory, the Court turned to whether the Employee’s statutory claims were within the scope of that agreement. The Court held that the Arbitration Agreement clearly and unmistakably encompassed those claims, and consequently, the Employee was required to arbitrate those claims.
The Second Circuit explained “that both this Circuit and other sister circuits have interpreted the clear and unmistakable standard to require specific references in the [collective bargaining agreement] either to the statutes in question or to statutory causes of action generally.” Slip op. at *13 (quotation and citation omitted).
The Court explained that a “vague directive” such as “‘any disputes . . . shall be subject to’ a grievance and arbitration procedure. . .” does not suffice, but that, here, the Arbitration Agreement “specifically cites. . . statutes. . . .” including “the FLSA, the New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, and [New York’s Labor Law], and requires claims under those statutes to proceed pursuant to [the Arbitration Agreement]’s grievance and arbitration procedures.” Slip op. at *14 (citations and quotations omitted). The Arbitration Agreement thus clearly and unmistakably required arbitration of those statutory claims.
The Employee’s brought claims under the FLSA and the NYLL, those claims are clearly and unambiguously within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement, and consequently, the Employee was required to arbitrate those claims. Slip op. at *14.
The Arbitration Agreement does not Deny the Employee
Due Process of Law
The district court concluded that the Arbitration Agreement denied the Employee “due process because ‘the worker apparently has no part in the selection of the arbitrator.’” Slip op. at *14-15. The Second Circuit disagreed.
The Employee was a member of the Union, and under applicable law, including 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), the “Union had authority to negotiate on behalf of Abdullayeva, and so the fact that she did not personally participate in the selection of the arbitrator does not violate due process.” See slip op. at *15. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Pyett, “unions ‘may agree to the inclusion of an arbitration provision in a collective-bargaining agreement in return for other concessions from the employer.’” Slip op. at *15 (quoting Pyett, 556 U.S. at 257). And “‘courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms that specify with whom [the parties] choose to arbitrate their disputes.’” Slip op. at *15 (quoting American Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2013) (emphasis in original; citation omitted).
The Union was the Employer’s representative “authorized to negotiate ‘conditions of employment,’ including arbitration clauses, with the Employer on behalf of [the Employer’s employees].” The Arbitration Agreement, “including its proviso that ‘claims. . . shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration before Elliot Shriftman,’ was the product of the Union’s negotiation with [the Employer].” Slip op. at *15-16.
New York law requires that “arbitration procedures must generally conform to the ‘due process right of notice and opportunity to defend.’” Slip op. at *16 (quoting Beckman v. Greentree Sec., Inc., 87 N.Y.2d 566, 570 (1996)). But the Employee did “not argue that [the Arbitration Agreement’s] procedures are lacking in notice, or that the selected arbitrator is biased or would conduct arbitration proceedings in bad faith.” Slip op. at *16.
Thus, “the challenged portion of the [Arbitration Agreement], which simply ‘specifies with whom’ arbitration will be conducted in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent, does not violate due process.” Slip op. at *16 (quoting American Exp. Co., 570 U.S. at 233).
Photo Acknowledgements
The photos featured in this post were licensed from Yay Images and are subject to copyright protection under applicable law.
Arbitrability questions are ordinarily for courts to decide, but parties may, by way of a “delegation provision,” clearly and unmistakably agree to submit them to arbitration. See, e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942-46 (1995); Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 2777 (2010). (See, e.g., Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum posts here, here, and here.)
But suppose parties to a delegation provision disagree about whether they are required to arbitrate a dispute, yet their contract clearly excludes the dispute from arbitration. Can a Court preemptively decide the merits of an arbitrability question delegated to the arbitrators, and refuse to compel arbitration of the arbitrability question, if the Court decides that the argument for arbitration of the underlying dispute is wholly groundless?
On January 8, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, held that where parties have clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability disputes, courts must compel arbitration even if the argument in favor of arbitration is “wholly groundless.” Schein v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ____, slip op. at *2, 5, & 8 (January 8, 2019).
The Court said that “[t]he [FAA] does not contain a ‘wholly groundless’ exception, and we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute….” Slip op. at 2; see also slip op. at 8. “When,” said the Court, “the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties’ decision as embodied in the contract.” Slip op. at 2; see also slip op. at 8. The “wholly groundless” exception, said the Court, “is inconsistent with the statutory text and with precedent[,]” and “confuses the question of who decides arbitrability with the separate question of who prevails on arbitrability.” Slip op. at 8.
Facts and Procedural History
Schein was a dispute between a dental equipment manufacturer and a distributor. The parties’ contract contained an arbitration agreement, which required arbitration of “[a]ny dispute arising under or related to [the Parties’] Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property of [the manufacturer]….” Slip op. at 2. Arbitration was to be “in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association [(the “AAA”)].” Slip op. at 2.
On April 4 we reported on 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009) (Thomas, J.), and published a follow-up post on April 7, 2009 (posts available here and here). The question before the Court was whether “a collective bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate [Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)] claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.” The Court told us the answer was “yes.”
That answer, of course, begs the question whether any particular collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) “clearly and unmistakably” requires arbitration of statutory claims. The Court in Shipkevich v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., No. 08-CV-1008 (FB)(JMA), 2009 WL 1706590 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2009) recently considered, among other things, whether the CBA before it clearly and unmistakably required arbitration of claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), New York State civil rights legislation, and New York City’s Human Rights Law, and said the answer was “no.” So let’s take a brief look at Shipkevich to get some perspective on what “clear and unmistakable” means. Continue Reading »
Part IIIC: Is the Narrow Construction Sustainable?
Introduction
In Part IIIB (here) we discussed in general terms the “Narrow Construction” of the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 (the “Fairness Act”), which would limit the scope of Proposed Section 2(c) to situations where the party resisting arbitration claims that the arbitration agreement requires predispute arbitration of consumer, franchise, employment or statutory civil rights disputes. We also set forth the five premises on which the Narrow Construction is based. This Part IIIC addresses the validity of those premises. [Because this post frequently refers to Proposed Section 2 and its subsections, we have reproduced at the end the pertinent parts of Proposed Section 2.]
The Narrow Construction is fairly complex. A court choosing it would have to determine each of its five premises to be valid. In addition, the validity of Premise 3 is interlinked to that of Premise 5: Premise 3 is easier to accept when viewed without regard to Premise 5 and Premise 5 is harder to accept when viewed in isolation from Premise 3. If a court believes that Premise 3 is reasonable, but has reservations about its validity, when it considers Premise 3 in conjunction with Premise 5, it may conclude that both are invalid. But if it is confident that Premise 3 is valid, that confidence might lead it to conclude that Premise 5 is valid. These are important considerations that a party advocating one construction or the other should take into account in structuring its argument. Continue Reading »
On April 1 the United States Supreme Court decided 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, ___ U.S. ___ (2009) (Thomas, J.), an interesting case that highlights some of the differences between labor arbitration governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and arbitration governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (the “FAA”). The question before the Court was whether “a collective bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate [Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)] claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.” Slip op. at 25. Reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court said “yes.” See slip op. at 25. Continue Reading »
Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Please see also the information and links set forth on each footer page of the The Loree Law Firm website of which this blog is a part (http://www.loreelawfirm.com), and in the disclaimer that appears in the bottom right corner of each post page of this blog.
Disclaimer: The content of this blog is not intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Loree Law Firm or any of its current or former clients.
