I would understand if not every state supreme court got the memo from last year’s SCOTUS decision on FAA preemption, Kindred, which reminded state courts that the FAA prevents state courts from imposing additional requirements on arbitration agreements that are not required for other types of contracts.  But Kentucky definitely got the memo.  The memo was addressed to Kentucky. Yet, last week the Supreme Court of Kentucky released a new decision that continues to convey hostility to arbitration and SCOTUS’s decisions interpreting the FAA.

The legal issue in Northern Ky. Area Development District v. Snyder, 2018 WL 4628143 (Ky. Sept. 27, 2018) is straightforward: Does the FAA preempt a Kentucky statute that prohibits employers from conditioning employment on an employee’s agreement to arbitrate claims.  The statute prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to “waive, arbitrate, or otherwise diminish any existing or future claim, right, or benefit to which the employee or person seeking employment would otherwise be entitled.”  In this case, the plaintiff was required to sign an arbitration agreement in order to work for the governmental entity.  When she sued over her termination, the employer moved to compel arbitration.

The trial court refused to compel arbitration.  Then the court of appeals affirmed, finding that the employer never had authority to enter into the arbitration in the first place (due to the statute), so the arbitration agreement did not technically exist.  (Too cute by half.  Plus, Justice Kagan specifically said that formation issues could also be preempted.)

The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed.  It also concluded that the employer, a state agency, was covered by the anti-arbitration statute.  And therefore, when it conditioned employment on an agreement to arbitrate, in violation of the statute, its action was “ultra vires,” and the resulting arbitration agreement was void.  (See parenthetical above.)

The court went on to find the anti-arbitration statute at issue was not preempted by the FAA.  The decision states with an apparently straight face that the statute “does not actually attack, single out, or specifically discriminate against arbitration agreements” and did not “evidenc[e] hostility to arbitration”.  The statute “simply prevents [the employer] from conditioning employment” on the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, it notes that the statute does not just preclude arbitration agreements, but also any agreement that waives or limits an employee’s rights.

BUT HERE’S THE PROBLEM.  Kentucky’s reasoning only makes sense if we agree that arbitration is a limitation or a diminishment of the employee’s rights.  If, instead, you assume that arbitration is simply an alternative forum for resolving the employee’s full set of rights, the logic falls apart.  But, will SCOTUS really want to hear another Kentucky decision?  Kentucky is betting that it won’t.  Maybe this should not surprise anyone; Kentucky did not exactly bend to SCOTUS’s will when Kindred was remanded.  And btw, the nursing home is seeking certiorari from the remand decision, and SCOTUS just relisted it, meaning it still has a chance. (For good measure, Kentucky’s high court issued a decision compelling arbitration on the same day, overruling an objection that the arbitration clause was not fully mutual.  Grimes v. GHSW Enterprises, 2018 WL 4628160 (Ky. Sept. 27, 2018).)

————————–

Speaking of SCOTUS, Monday it denied cert in at least four arbitration cases.  Two were companion cases (from Cal. and Neb.) that sought guidance on what types of challenges can invalidate a delegation clause.  (My blog post here, SCOTUSblog here and here.)  Another presented issues regarding binding non-signatories to arbitration through equitable estoppel. The fourth involved a question of whether an employer waived its right to arbitration (Cash Biz).  (My post here, filings here.)

And – this morning, SCOTUS hears arguments in New Prime, addressing the exemption in FAA Section One.

[Thanks to @PerryCooper for alerting me to a few of these cert denials.]

The Ninth, Sixth, and Third Circuits all recently issued decisions about whether putative class or collective actions could proceed despite the existence of arbitration clauses.  In two of those decisions, the courts found the arbitration agreements did not allow for class arbitration and therefore dismissed the claims.  In the third, the court found the arbitration agreement was not applicable to the dispute.

In Opalinski v. Robert Half Int’l, 2017 WL 395968 (3d Cir. filed Jan. 30, 2017), the Third Circuit again tackled arbitrability issues in a case that has gotten the runaround for five years (district court, then arbitrator, then district court, then appellate court, back to district court, now back to appellate court).  The case involves a collective action complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The arbitration clause between the employees and employer provides for AAA arbitration.  In its most recent decision, the district court dismissed the action, finding the arbitration clause did not allow class arbitration.  On appeal, the Third Circuit reiterated that courts (not arbitrators) should decide whether class arbitration is available.  It found that in this case the parties’ arbitration clause does not indicate they agreed to class arbitration.  In particular, the court found the absence of any explicit mention of class arbitration was dispositive, and outweighed the fact that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes arising under statutes that allow class litigation.

In another employment dispute, Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 2017 Wl 461099 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2017), a class of employees asserted that the employer had misclassified them as exempt from overtime pay and asserted a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim.  The arbitration agreement provided “neither You nor the Company may bring any Claim combined with or on behalf of any other person or entity, whether on a collective, representative, or class action basis.” It ended with a severability clause, so that if any part of the arbitration agreement was invalid, the rest of it would be enforced.  The employer moved to compel arbitration and dismiss class or representative claims.  The district court found the arbitration clause was unconscionable and denied the employer’s motion.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding only two aspects of the arbitration clause were unconscionable/unenforceable and those could be severed, allowing the rest of the arbitration clause to be enforced.  (The two stinkers: waiver of a representative PAGA claim (see Iskanian); and a provision allowing only the employer to go to court for injunctive or equitable relief.)

While the two classes of employees above were not able to continue prosecuting claims as a group (and had to go to arbitration), a class of consumers won the right to stay in court in Stevens-Bratton v. TruGreen, Inc., 2017 WL 108032 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017).  In that case the class representative had hired a lawn care company for one year.   More than six months after the service contract had been terminated, the class representative received numerous telemarketing calls from the company, even though her number was on the Do-Not-Call Registry.  She then sued for violation of the TCPA.  In response, the lawn care company moved to compel arbitration, based on its service contract with the class representative, which “expressly waive[d] any ability to maintain any Class Action.”  The district court compelled arbitration, and the 6th Circuit reversed.  Although there is usually a presumption in favor of an arbitration agreement surviving the expiration of the rest of a contract, the court was not convinced that the dispute “had its real source in the contract.”  It found that the lawn care service contract was “irrelevant to this case,” since it had completely expired before the calls took place and the lawn services provided were not at issue in the TCPA claim.

Today’s post is brought to you by the number 8.  The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a new opinion yesterday finding that a defendant who litigated in court for 8 months waived its right to arbitrate (aka, ARBITR8) plaintiff’s employment claims.  [That could be my vanity plate!!]

Messina v. North Central Distributing, Inc., 2016 WL 2640911 (8th Cir. May 10, 2016), involved an employee’s claims of wrongful termination and breach of contract against his employer.  The employee brought those claims in Minnesota state court.  In response, the employer removed the case to federal court, filed an answer asserting 24 affirmative defenses, and later moved to transfer the case to federal court in California.  Only after the federal judge in Minnesota denied the motion to transfer did the employer move to compel arbitration.  That motion came eight months after the plaintiff had filed his complaint.  The district court denied the motion to compel, finding the employer had waived its right to arbitrate, and the appellate court affirmed that result.

The appellate court agreed that all three elements of the test for waiving arbitration rights were met.  First, the employer “knew of [its] existing right to arbitration,” because it had the arbitration agreement in its possession.  Second, the employer “acted inconsistently with that right” by litigating for eight months, including making two motions (removal and transfer), and filing scheduling reports that indicated the case would proceed to trial.  The court also faulted the employer for not raising arbitration at the earliest possible time — in its Answer or in the Rule 26(f) report.  And third, the employer “prejudiced the other party by these inconsistent acts,” in that it caused delay and forced the employee to respond to motions and participate in procedures not available in arbitration.

The 8th Circuit seemed most concerned about the gamesmanship, however.  It commented that “[t]he timing of [the employer’s] actions demonstrates that it ‘wanted to play heads I win, tails you lose,’ which ‘is the worst possible reason’ for failing to move for arbitration sooner than it did.”

The test used by the 8th Circuit to determine waiver of arbitration rights is similar to that used in many circuits, so this case is a good opportunity to remind parties and counsel that there are serious risks to not raising the existence of an arbitration agreement early in a case.  My rule of thumb — not yet adopted by any court — is that it should be raised within the first three months of litigation and before making any (other) affirmative motion that requires court resources.