Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc.
761 F.3d 326
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs Opalinski and McCabe, former RHI employees, sued under the FLSA claiming unpaid overtime and were subject to employment agreements containing arbitration clauses silent on class arbitration.
- RHI moved to compel individual (bilateral) arbitration; the district court compelled arbitration but directed the arbitrator to decide whether classwide arbitration was available (Oct. 2011 Order).
- The arbitrator issued a partial award permitting classwide arbitration. RHI sought to vacate that award; the district court denied the motion (Dec. 2012 Order).
- RHI appealed only the district court’s denial of vacatur; the critical question on appeal became who should decide whether the arbitration agreements authorize classwide arbitration — the court or the arbitrator.
- The Third Circuit reviewed whether the availability of class arbitration is a “question of arbitrability” (i.e., presumptively for the court unless parties clearly and unmistakably delegate it to an arbitrator).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether availability of classwide arbitration is a question of arbitrability | Class arbitration is procedural; arbitrator should decide (parties expected arbitrator to resolve procedural issues) | The distinction between class and individual arbitration changes whose claims are resolved and the type of controversy; court should decide | The availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability for the court to decide absent clear delegation to an arbitrator |
| Whether silence in the arbitration agreement delegates the class arbitration question to the arbitrator | Silence permits arbitrator to interpret and decide class procedures | Silence does not meet the “clear and unmistakable” standard required to delegate arbitrability questions | Silence or ambiguous language is insufficient; parties must clearly and unmistakably delegate to arbitrate the gateway issue |
| Whether the district court’s October 2011 administrative closure was a final order for appeal timeliness purposes | Plaintiffs argued the Oct. 2011 Order was final and appeal was untimely | RHI argued the Oct. 2011 Order was nonfinal administrative closure and the Dec. 2012 Order was the final appealable decision | The Oct. 2011 Order was not final; the appeal from the Dec. 2012 Order was timely |
| Whether the district court erred by denying vacatur of the arbitrator’s partial award without deciding arbitrability | Plaintiffs contended district court properly deferred under its order to arbitrator | RHI argued the court should have decided the gateway arbitrability question before deferring to the arbitrator | The district court erred by delegating the class-arbitrability question to the arbitrator; its orders were reversed and case remanded for the court to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (distinguishes gateway questions of arbitrability from procedural questions for arbitrators)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (discusses immediate appeals and finality of arbitration-related orders)
- Bazzle v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 539 U.S. 444 (2003) (plurality opinion addressing who decides class arbitration; not controlling)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (class arbitration changes nature of arbitration; casts doubt on Bazzle plurality)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (class arbitration fundamentally differs from bilateral arbitration)
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 568 U.S. 564 (2013) (noted Supreme Court had not definitively resolved who decides class arbitrability)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (courts presumptively decide arbitrability unless parties clearly and unmistakably delegate)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Crockett, 734 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2013) (held availability of class arbitration is a gateway matter for judicial determination)
- Quilloin v. Tenet HealthSys. Philadelphia, Inc., 673 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2012) (previous Circuit discussion; dictum on who decides class arbitration)
- Puleo v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 605 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) (framework for questions of arbitrability)