New Jersey
Civil Justice Institute

  • Helpful Links
  • Contact Us
  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
    • Our Mission
    • Membership
    • Our Staff
  • ISSUES & ADVOCACY
  • OUR WORK IN THE COURTS
  • NEWSROOM
  • GET INVOLVED

Fairness. Justice.
Rule of Law.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration, Again

June 19, 2020Recent News, Top StoriesNJCJI

A familiar case will soon be back at the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Court has agreed to hear another arbitration case in the coming term: Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales.

If the name sounds familiar, it’s because this is the second trip to the U.S. Supreme Court for these litigants.  You will recall the Court’s 9-0 decision from last year, striking down a 5th Circuit opinion and its “wholly groundless” exception to arbitration delegation provisions.

Parties can agree prospectively to arbitrate the merits of a future dispute.  And they can also agree to delegate to an arbitrator the gateway question – whether a particular dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement.  The 5th Circuit had declined to enforce the delegation clause, on the theory that the applicability of the arbitration agreement was “wholly groundless.”

The arbitration agreement in Schein covers all disputes arising out of the agreement but excluded claims for injunctive relief. But because the plaintiffs are seeking both money damages and injunctive relief, the lower court found the defendants’ argument for arbitration was “wholly groundless.” The question presented in Schein I was whether this “wholly groundless” exception was consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

Noting that a “wholly groundless” exception would “inevitably spark collateral litigation” over whether the delegation of arbitrability was or was not “wholly groundless,” the Court unanimously rejected that interpretation and remanded for further proceedings. 

Tasked with interpreting the arbitration clause anew, the lower court again declined to enforce the delegation provision, this time concluding that the arbitration agreement failed to meet the standard of having delegated the arbitrability question to an arbitrator by “clear and unmistakable evidence.”

The court held that the presence of the carve-out for injunctive relief had the effect of excluding claims involving injunctive relief both from the arbitration agreement and from the delegation provision delegating the arbitrability to the arbitrator.

It’s also worth noting that the “claim for injunctive relief” is comprised entirely of the following boilerplate two-sentence request: “Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief.  The violations set forth above are continuing and will continue unless injunctive relief is granted.” 

Resistance by lower courts is among reasons FAA first enacted.  And to watch lower courts continued efforts to invalidate arbitration agreements is to understand the need for federal protection for these contract rights.

Newsletter Sign Up




© 2022 NJCJI. All rights reserved.

Follow us on:

  • twitter
  • linkedin

TWITTER FEED TWITTER FEED

  • https://t.co/DlWbCRFBea, Jul 1
  • https://t.co/xl0stnCZfj NJCJI President Anthony Anastasio testified this week about the implications of NJ Senate… https://t.co/o55d5pA29b, Jun 24
  • https://t.co/x2z9vrW707 Thank you to @PPAGInc, @GenovaBurns, and @PBWTLaw for your support of the 2022 Spring Event!, Jun 21
  • Institute for Legal Reform Releases Update on Third-Party Litigation Funding https://t.co/UQDqeUQ712, Apr 15
  • The American Tort Reform Association issued a report about the National Association of Attorneys General. https://t.co/14sYVCKPrY, Apr 8

    QUICK CONTACT



    Please enter the code as shown below

    captcha

    New Jersey Civil Justice Institute | 112 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608 | office: (609) 218-6331 | info@civiljusticenj.org