Robinson v. J & K Administrative ManageMent Services, Inc.
817 F.3d 193
5th Cir.2016Background
- J & K Administrative required employees to arbitrate “claims for wages or other compensation” and claims challenging the validity/applicability of the arbitration agreement.
- Robinson, a former employee, filed an FLSA overtime claim and initiated arbitration with JAMS after J & K ignored a demand; four other former employees later sought to join.
- Robinson moved to compel arbitration, appoint JAMS as arbitrator, and have the arbitrator decide whether collective arbitration was permitted.
- The district court, applying Pedcor Management, held that the question whether collective/class arbitration is available should be decided by the arbitrator and dismissed the action with prejudice.
- J & K appealed, arguing Pedcor was abrogated by Stolt‑Nielsen and that the court, not an arbitrator, must decide availability of collective arbitration; J & K also sought appointment of an independent arbitrator on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (J & K) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrability question (including availability of collective arbitration) is for the court or the arbitrator | Agreement delegates arbitrability to arbitrator under clause covering challenges to validity/applicability | Pedcor is abrogated by Stolt‑Nielsen; courts must decide class/collective availability when contract is silent | Court affirmed: clause (g) clearly delegates arbitrability to arbitrator; Pedcor controls |
| Whether Stolt‑Nielsen overruled Pedcor and prevents deferral of class/collective availability to arbitrators | Stolt‑Nielsen does not disturb prior rule that parties may delegate arbitrability | Stolt‑Nielsen eliminated the Green Tree majority rationale; therefore Pedcor should not control | Court held Stolt‑Nielsen did not abrogate Pedcor; rule of orderliness binds the panel to Pedcor |
| Whether clause (g)’s silence on class procedures prevents delegation | Clause (g) expressly covers challenges to applicability/enforceability, so delegation is clear | Silence as to class procedures means no contractual basis for class arbitration; court should decide | Held delegation is unambiguous; arbitrator decides whether class/collective procedures are permitted |
| Whether appellate court should appoint an independent arbitrator | Robinson requested JAMS appointment in district court | J & K sought independent appointment on appeal | Appellate court declined to revisit: district court already appointed JAMS and parties waived challenge on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pedcor Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Nations Pers. of Tex., Inc., 343 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2003) (arbitrability—including class/collective availability—may be delegated to arbitrator where contract manifests intent)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (U.S. 2003) (plurality: broad arbitration clauses may commit class‑procedure questions to arbitrator)
- Stolt‑Nielsen S.A. v. Animal‑Feeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2010) (a party cannot be compelled to submit to class arbitration absent a contractual basis; clarified limits of Green Tree plurality)
- Rent‑A‑Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2010) (parties may delegate gateway arbitrability questions to an arbitrator through clear and unmistakable contractual language)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2002) (procedural questions are for arbitrators unless parties clearly provide otherwise)