Over the past few decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions exploring the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court has generally favored a broad reading of the FAA, rejecting many claims by employees attempting to avoid arbitration of their claims, or to overturn arbitration decisions they view as unfair or unsubstantiated.
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision dealing with the authority of federal courts to hear post-arbitration motions. Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties follows a 2022 Supreme Court decision holding that federal courts did not have jurisdiction over a post-arbitration suit filed seeking to confirm that decision. Jules differs from that case because the plaintiff originally filed the discrimination lawsuit in federal district court, which stayed that lawsuit pending the arbitration. The Second Circuit found that this initial suit gave the district court authority under the FAA to hear the post-arbitration motions.
Federal appellate courts have split on this question, prompting the Supreme Court review. A decision in favor of the employer would likely close off another area of challenge by employees to unfavorable arbitration decisions. A decision on this case is expected sometime next year.
[View source.]
