• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


SCOTUS Will Yet Again Decide Delegation of Arbitrability Question in Henry Schein Case

0
by Beth Graham

Wednesday, Jun 24, 2020


Tweet

The Supreme Court of the United States has once again agreed to resolve a circuit split regarding whether it is up to a court or an arbitrator to decide questions related to arbitrability in the ongoing saga of Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc.  Last year, the nation’s highest court delivered a unanimous opinion in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272 (January 8, 2019) stating a court may not decide the issue of arbitrability if the parties have contracted otherwise or incorporated arbitral rules that delegate the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator even in situations where the arbitration claim is deemed to be “wholly groundless.” (A complete history of the case is available in a previous Disputing blog post.) After the Supreme Court issued its opinion, the case was remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Following remand, the Fifth Circuit once again affirmed a district court’s order stating it was up to the court to determine arbitrability.  The Fifth Circuit stated:

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the “wholly groundless” exception was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court declined to opine on whether the contract in this case in fact delegated the threshold arbitrability question to an arbitrator, remanding for this court to make that determination in the first instance. It reminded that “courts ‘should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so.’ ” Tasked with interpreting the arbitration clause anew, we conclude that the parties have not clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Accepting that the district court had the power to decide arbitrability, we now hold that the district court correctly determined that this case is not subject to the arbitration clause and affirm.

Yet again, Henry Schein filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing the high court must resolve a split among the circuit courts.  According to the Henry Schein’s petition, the question presented in the case is:

Whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.

In addition, Archer and White filed a cross-petition asking the court to decide:

Whether an arbitration agreement that identifies a set of arbitration rules to apply if there is arbitration clearly and unmistakably delegates to the arbitrator disputes about whether the parties agreed to arbitrate in the first place.

On June 15th, the Supreme Court of the United States granted Henry Schein’s petition and denied that of Archer and White.  The latest Henry Schein case (No. 19-963) has not yet been set for argument.

Photo by: Bill Mason on Unsplash

Related Posts

  • SCOTUS Dismisses Henry Schein, Denies Certiorari in Another Question of Arbitrability CaseSCOTUS Dismisses Henry Schein, Denies Certiorari in Another Question of Arbitrability Case
  • SCOTUS Holds Delegation Clause Must be Enforced Even if Trial Court Deems Arbitration Claim “Wholly Groundless”SCOTUS Holds Delegation Clause Must be Enforced Even if Trial Court Deems Arbitration Claim “Wholly Groundless”
  • Henry Schein and the Patent Eligibility StatuteHenry Schein and the Patent Eligibility Statute
  • SCOTUS to Consider Delegation of “Wholly Groundless” Arbitrability ClaimsSCOTUS to Consider Delegation of “Wholly Groundless” Arbitrability Claims
  • Houston COA Affirms Arbitration Award in Roofing DisputeHouston COA Affirms Arbitration Award in Roofing Dispute
  • Disputing’s 6-Year Anniversary | Aug. 24, 2011Disputing’s 6-Year Anniversary | Aug. 24, 2011

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy