Zions Management Services v. Record, 305 P.3d 1062

Jeffrey Record was employed by Zions and signed an Employee Handbook containing a mandatory arbitration provision governed by the FAA that nonetheless said employees may file claims with administrative agencies and that arbitration is the process for pursuing relief “beyond the agency.”
Record filed a Charge with the Utah Anti-Discrimination and Labor Division (UALD); UALD dismissed his discrimination claims and Record appealed to the Labor Commission.
Zions sought to enforce the arbitration agreement by filing to compel arbitration in district court; the district court ordered Record to arbitrate and ordered the Labor Commission to stop its review.
The Labor Commission initially refused to dismiss its proceedings, prompting Record to continue the administrative appeal; Zions then obtained a district-court contempt order against Record for not complying with the arbitration order.
The Supreme Court of Utah considered (1) whether the district court’s order compelling arbitration was a final, appealable order and (2) whether the arbitration clause required Record to arbitrate before exhausting administrative remedies.

Issue	Record's Argument	Zions' Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s Order Compelling Arbitration was a final, appealable order	The order was final because, despite the district court’s attempted stay of administrative proceedings, the court lacked jurisdiction to stay the Labor Commission, so nothing remained pending in district court	The order was not final because it stayed (rather than dismissed) the underlying administrative proceedings and the district court retains post-arbitration jurisdiction	The order was final: the stay of administrative proceedings was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so the arbitration order left nothing pending in district court and was appealable
Whether Record was required to arbitrate his discrimination claims while pursuing administrative remedies	The arbitration clause unambiguously permits filing administrative claims and requires arbitration only for relief pursued “beyond the agency” — Record had not sought relief beyond the agency and thus arbitration was not yet required	The clause is ambiguous; federal and state policy favor arbitration, so ambiguities should be construed to compel arbitration	The clause is unambiguous: it permits administrative appeals and mandates arbitration only after a party seeks relief beyond the agency; district court erred in compelling arbitration — order vacated

Powell v. Cannon, 179 P.3d 799 (Utah 2008) (an order staying litigation and compelling arbitration is not final if the court retains live claims)
Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989) (FAA does not preempt state procedural rules; state rules govern unless they frustrate FAA purposes)
Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 130 S. Ct. 2847 (2010) (arbitration is a matter of consent; scope depends on parties’ agreement)
Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (district-court order directing arbitration and dismissing claims is a final, appealable decision)