Seiu Local 121rn v. Los Robles Reg'l Med. Ctr.
976 F.3d 849
9th Cir.2020Background
- Los Robles Regional Medical Center and SEIU Local 121RN were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) containing a broad grievance/arbitration clause (Article 38).
- SEIU filed a grievance alleging unsafe staffing and training violations and pursued arbitration; the Hospital disputed arbitrability and said an arbitrator lacked authority to decide arbitrability.
- The district court granted SEIU’s motion to compel arbitration after concluding, under Ninth Circuit precedent (Desert Palace), that the broad CBA clause delegated the arbitrability question to the arbitrator.
- The Hospital appealed; the Ninth Circuit considered whether Desert Palace remains good law after the Supreme Court’s decision in Granite Rock.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held Desert Palace is abrogated by Granite Rock, concluded there was no "clear and unmistakable" evidence delegating arbitrability to the arbitrator, reversed the district court, and remanded for the district court to decide arbitrability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides arbitrability (Delegation Question)? | SEIU: Broad CBA clause delegates that question to arbitrator. | Hospital: Courts must decide arbitrability absent clear delegation. | Court: Desert Palace abrogated; court decides arbitrability unless "clear and unmistakable" delegation exists. |
| Does Granite Rock apply equally to labor and commercial arbitration? | SEIU: Granite Rock did not address Delegation Question; Desert Palace remains. | Hospital: Granite Rock applies same framework to labor and commercial disputes, undermining Desert Palace. | Court: Granite Rock rejects using labor-policy to override party agreement; applies equally and abrogates Desert Palace. |
| Does a broadly worded CBA clause alone show "clear and unmistakable" delegation? | SEIU: Yes; broad language covering interpretation/application implies delegation. | Hospital: Broad clause is silent on who decides arbitrability and thus insufficient. | Court: CBA silent on delegation; broad clause alone not clear and unmistakable here. |
| Remedy / disposition | SEIU: Arbitration should proceed before arbitrator. | Hospital: Case should return to district court to resolve arbitrability. | Court: Reversed district court's order compelling arbitration and remanded for district court determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (courts should not assume parties delegated arbitrability; requires "clear and unmistakable" evidence to delegate)
- United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local No. 1780 v. Desert Palace, Inc., 94 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1996) (held a broad CBA clause could itself delegate arbitrability to arbitrator; abrogated by this decision)
- Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (applies same arbitrability framework to labor and commercial disputes; courts cannot substitute policy for party agreement)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (panel may follow intervening Supreme Court precedent and reject prior circuit precedent that is irreconcilable)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (recognizes that parties must "clearly and unmistakably" provide otherwise to divest courts of arbitrability determination)
- IATSE Local 720 v. InSync Show Productions, Inc., 801 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2015) (applied broad-clause analysis in the context of termination/expiration disputes; distinguished from pure Delegation Questions)
- Pacesetter Constr. Co. v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Conference Bd., 116 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1997) (prior Ninth Circuit treatment of arbitrability in the labor context; reconsidered in light of First Options and later Granite Rock)