Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.

Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Oct 29, 2018.
Decided on Jan 8, 2019.

Petitioner: Henry Schein, Inc., et al..
Respondent: Archer and White Sales, Inc..

Advocates:

Kannon K. Shanmugam (for petitioners)
Daniel L. Geyser (for respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 2012, Archer & White Sales, Inc.—a distributor, seller, and servicer for multiple dental equipment manufacturers—filed a lawsuit against Henry Schein, Inc. and its parent company—allegedly the largest distributor and manufacturer of dental equipment in the United States. In its lawsuit, Archer alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, and Schein moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a clause in a contract (“Dealer Agreement”) between Archer and another distributor who was allegedly Schein’s predecessor in interest.

After a hearing, the magistrate judge held (1) the arbitration clause manifested an intent to have an arbitrator decide questions of arbitrability; (2) there is a reasonable construction of the arbitration clause that would call for arbitration in this dispute; and (3) the standard for determining whether equitable estoppel is appropriate requires arbitration against both signatories and non-signatories to the Dealer Agreement.

The district court vacated the magistrate judge’s order and held that the court could decide the question of arbitrability, and that the dispute was not arbitrable because the plain language of the arbitration clause expressly excluded suits that involved requests for injunctive relief. The court declined to reach the question of equitable estoppel. Schein appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

In the Fifth Circuit, courts must look first to whether the parties “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator. If they did, “the motion to compel arbitration should be granted in almost all cases,” except where “the argument that the claim at hand is within the scope of the arbitration agreement is ‘wholly groundless.’” This standard requires consideration of whether there is a plausible argument for the arbitrability of the dispute. If there is no such plausible argument, “the district court may decide the ‘gateway’ issue of arbitrability despite a valid delegation clause.’”

Reviewing the district court’s determinations de novo, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court.

Question

Does the Federal Arbitration Act permit a court to decline to enforce an agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator if the court concludes the claim of arbitrability is “wholly groundless”?

Conclusion

The “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, so the question of arbitrability should be resolved by an arbitrator, not a court. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court reiterated its prior decisions that parties to a contract have the ultimate say in whether to have an arbitrator or a court resolve disputes—not only the merits of disputes, but also questions of arbitrability. The Court found that in this contract, the parties had delegated to an arbitrator the question of arbitrability, so a court cannot override the contract and resolve such questions.

The Court found unpersuasive Archer & White’s arguments to the contrary, holding that neither the text of the Act nor Congress’s intent in designing it supported a reading of the Act that empowers a court to resolve the question of arbitrability against the express wishes of the contracting parties.

The Court remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit to consider the question whether the contract in fact delegated the arbitrability question to an arbitrator.

[17-1272] Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

[17-1272] Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.