Who gets to decide who gets to decide whether a claim can be arbitrated?  That was the question before the California Supreme Court—not whether a claim can be arbitrated, but who gets to decide that question?   Is it an arbitrator, or is it a court?  The court addressed the question in its July 28 opinion in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive.

Tim Sandquist sued his former employer Lebo Automotive for racial discrimination, for himself and for a class consisting of “current and former employees of color.”  Lebo moved to compel individual arbitration, citing an arbitration agreement Tim had signed.  The trial court granted the motion and, ruling that the agreement didn’t permit class arbitration, struck the class allegations.  When Tim couldn’t find a substitute representative (because every employee had signed the same arbitration agreement), the court dismissed the class claims with prejudice.

The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the class claims, ruling that the availability of class proceedings under an arbitration agreement is a question for the arbitrator rather than the court.  Lebo appealed, insisting that the law presumes that the availability of class arbitration is a question for the courts.

The California Supreme Court ruled that no such presumption exists.  Rather, the question is one of contract interpretation: what did the contracting parties intend?  In this case, the court found that the parties had intended that the question before it—who decides whether class arbitration is available?—should be decided by the arbitrator.   After all, the contract committed to arbitration all claims “arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with my . . . employment. . . .” by Lebo.  And who could deny that the question was related to employment by Lebo?

The case is Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, No. S220812 (Calif., July 28, 2016).