Jin Jin v. Parsons Corporation
966 F.3d 821
| D.C. Cir. | 2020Background
- Jin O. Jin sued Parsons Corporation for employment discrimination. Parsons moved to compel arbitration under an Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Agreement.
- Parsons instituted the EDR program in 1998 and updated it in October 2012; the 2012 email told employees that continued employment after the effective date would constitute acceptance if they did not sign.
- Parsons submitted HR declarations and email logs showing it emailed Jin about the Agreement multiple times and that Jin continued employment after the effective date; Jin declared he never received or signed the Agreement and had no recollection of the EDR program.
- The district court found a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Jin assented to arbitration and denied Parsons’s motion to compel arbitration, but did not hold the §4 “summary trial” on arbitrability and instead ordered Parsons to answer and proceed with discovery.
- Parsons appealed. The D.C. Circuit held it has appellate jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. §16(a), concluded the district court erred by denying the motion without a §4 trial, vacated the district court’s order, and remanded for a prompt, limited trial on arbitrability (with the motion held in abeyance pending that trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jin) | Defendant's Argument (Parsons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration | Denial should not be immediately appealable when the district court found factual disputes (like a denial of summary judgment) | §16(a) of the FAA permits immediate appeal of an order denying a petition under §4 or refusing a §3 stay | D.C. Cir.: §16(a) grants jurisdiction to review the denial where the district court’s order effectively allows the case to proceed to the merits |
| Whether the district court may deny a motion to compel arbitration without conducting a §4 "summary trial" when genuine factual disputes exist about formation/assent | The district court’s factual finding of a genuine dispute justified denying the motion and proceeding with merits | FAA §4 requires the court to proceed “summarily to the trial” on arbitrability when the making of the arbitration agreement is in issue; denial without such a trial is error | D.C. Cir.: When genuine dispute of material fact exists about arbitrability, the district court must hold a prompt, limited §4 trial (or, if appropriate, resolve as a matter of law); the motion should be held in abeyance pending that trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228 (2013) (arbitration is a matter of contract and arbitration agreements must be enforced according to their terms)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (courts must decide that parties agreed to arbitrate before applying the FAA)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (section 4 calls for an expeditious, summary hearing with restricted factual inquiry)
- Camara v. Mastro’s Rests. LLC, 952 F.3d 372 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (courts should address arbitrability at the outset; motion-to-compel treated like summary judgment on arbitrability)
- Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., 748 F.3d 975 (10th Cir. 2014) (district court must promptly try disputed facts on arbitrability rather than deny motion and proceed to merits)
- Sandvik AB v. Advent Int’l Corp., 220 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2000) (§16 permits appeal of orders denying arbitration; appeals not limited to final orders)
- John Thompson Beacon Windows, Ltd. v. Ferro, Inc., 232 F.2d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (discussed historical jurisdictional approach predating §16 amendment)