Source: https://casetext.com/case/new-prime-inc-v-oliveira-1?ref=AsLV8C!LW6z98
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 21:09:52+00:00

Document:
insert_drive_fileLower court opinion from 1st Cir.
ployment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." For a court to invoke its statutory authority under §§3 and 4, it must first know if the parties' agreement is excluded from the Act's coverage by the terms of §§1 and 2. This sequencing is significant. See, e.g., Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U. S. 198, 201-202. New Prime notes that the parties' contract contains a "delegation clause," giving the arbitrator authority to decide threshold questions of arbitrability, and that the "severability principle" requires that both sides take all their disputes to arbitration. But a delegation clause is merely a specialized type of arbitration agreement and is enforceable under §§3 and 4 only if it appears in a contract consistent with §2 that does not trigger §1's exception. And, the Act's severability principle applies only if the parties' arbitration agreement appears in a contract that falls within the field §§1 and 2 describe. Pp. 3-6.
(a) "[I]t's a 'fundamental canon of statutory construction' that words generally should be 'interpreted as taking their ordinary . . . meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.'" Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42). After all, if judges could freely invest old statutory terms with new meanings, this Court would risk amending legislation outside the "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure" the Constitution commands. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 951. The Court would risk, too, upsetting reliance interests by subjecting people today to different rules than they enjoyed when the statute was passed. At the time of the Act's adoption in 1925, the phrase "contract of employment" was not a term of art, and dictionaries tended to treat "employment" more or less as a synonym for "work." Contemporaneous legal authorities provide no evidence that a "contract of employment" necessarily signaled a formal employer-employee relationship. Evidence that Congress used the term "contracts of employment" broadly can be found in its choice of the neighboring term "workers," a term that easily embraces independent contractors. Pp. 6-10.
tionship. New Prime's argument that early 20th-century courts sometimes used the phrase "contracts of employment" to describe what are recognized today as agreements between employers and employees does nothing to negate the possibility that the term also embraced agreements by independent contractors to perform work. And its effort to explain away the statute's suggestive use of the term "worker" by noting that the neighboring terms "seamen" and "railroad employees" included only employees in 1925 rests on a precarious premise. The evidence suggests that even "seamen" and "railroad employees" could be independent contractors at the time the Arbitration Act passed. Left to appeal to the Act's policy, New Prime suggests that this Court order arbitration to abide Congress' effort to counteract judicial hostility to arbitration and establish a favorable federal policy toward arbitration agreements. Courts, however, are not free to pave over bumpy statutory texts in the name of more expeditiously advancing a policy goal. Rather, the Court should respect "the limits up to which Congress was prepared" to go when adopting the Arbitration Act. United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 298. This Court also declines to address New Prime's suggestion that it order arbitration anyway under its inherent authority to stay litigation in favor of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism of the parties' choosing. Pp. 10-15.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except KAVANAUGH, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. GINSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion. Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
New Prime is an interstate trucking company and Dominic Oliveira works as one of its drivers. But, at least on paper, Mr. Oliveira isn't an employee; the parties' contracts label him an independent contractor. Those agree- ments also instruct that any disputes arising out of the parties' relationship should be resolved by an arbitrator—even disputes over the scope of the arbitrator's authority.
That request led to more than a little litigation of its own. Even when the parties' contracts mandate arbitration, Mr. Oliveira observed, the Act doesn't always authorize a court to enter an order compelling it. In particular, §1 carves out from the Act's coverage "contracts of employment of . . . workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." And at least for purposes of this collateral dispute, Mr. Oliveira submitted, it doesn't matter whether you view him as an employee or independent contractor. Either way, his agreement to drive trucks for New Prime qualifies as a "contract of employment of . . . [a] worker engaged in . . . interstate commerce." Accordingly, Mr. Oliveira argued, the Act supplied the district court with no authority to compel arbitration in this case.
Nothing in our holding on this score should come as a surprise. We've long stressed the significance of the statute's sequencing. In Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U. S. 198, 201-202 (1956), we recognized that "Sections 1, 2, and 3 [and 4] are integral parts of a whole. . . . [Sections] 1 and 2 define the field in which Congress was legislating," and §§3 and 4 apply only to contracts covered by those provisions. In Circuit City, we acknowledged that "Section 1 exempts from the [Act] . . . contracts of employment of transportation workers." 532 U. S., at 119. And in Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, 10-11, and n. 5 (1984), we noted that "the enforceability of arbitration provisions" under §§3 and 4 depends on whether those provisions are "part of a written maritime contract or a contract 'evidencing a transaction in- volving commerce'" under §2—which, in turn, depends on the application of §1's exception for certain "contracts of employment."
To be sure, New Prime resists this straightforward understanding. The company argues that an arbitrator should resolve any dispute over §1's application because of the "delegation clause" in the parties' contract and what is sometimes called the "severability principle." A delegation clause gives an arbitrator authority to decide even the initial question whether the parties' dispute is subject to arbitration. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U. S. 63, 68-69 (2010). And under the severability principle, we treat a challenge to the validity of an arbitration agreement (or a delegation clause) separately from a challenge to the validity of the entire contract in which it appears. Id., at 70-71. Unless a party specifically challenges the validity of the agreement to arbitrate, both sides may be required to take all their disputes—including disputes about the validity of their broader contract—to arbitration. Ibid. Applying these principles to this case, New Prime notes that Mr. Oliveira has not specifically challenged the parties' delegation clause and submits that any controversy should therefore proceed only and immediately before an arbitrator.
In taking up this question, we bear an important caution in mind. "[I]t's a 'fundamental canon of statutory construction' that words generally should be 'interpreted as taking their ordinary . . . meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.'" Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9) (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42 (1979)). See also Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 571 U. S. 220, 227 (2014). After all, if judges could freely invest old statutory terms with new meanings, we would risk amending legislation outside the "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure" the Constitution commands. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 951 (1983). We would risk, too, upsetting reliance interests in the settled meaning of a statute. Cf. 2B N. Singer & J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction §56A:3 (rev. 7th ed. 2012). Of course, statutes may sometimes refer to an external source of law and fairly warn readers that they must abide that external source of law, later amendments and modifications included. Id., §51:8 (discussing the reference canon). But nothing like that exists here. Nor has anyone suggested any other appropriate reason that might allow us to depart from the original meaning of the statute at hand.
What's the evidence to support this conclusion? It turns out that in 1925 the term "contract of employment" wasn't defined in any of the (many) popular or legal dictionaries the parties cite to us. And surely that's a first hint the phrase wasn't then a term of art bearing some specialized meaning. It turns out, too, that the dictionaries of the era consistently afforded the word "employment" a broad construction, broader than may be often found in dictionaries today. Back then, dictionaries tended to treat "employment" more or less as a synonym for "work." Nor did they distinguish between different kinds of work or workers: All work was treated as employment, whether or not the common law criteria for a master-servant relationship happened to be satisfied.
What the dictionaries suggest, legal authorities confirm. This Court's early 20th-century cases used the phrase "contract of employment" to describe work agreements involving independent contractors. Many state court cases did the same. So did a variety of federal statutes. And state stat- utes too. We see here no evidence that a "contract of employment" necessarily signaled a formal employer-employee or master-servant relationship.
What does New Prime have to say about the case building against it? Mainly, it seeks to shift the debate from the term "contracts of employment" to the word "employee." Today, the company emphasizes, the law often distinguishes between employees and independent contractors. Employees are generally understood as those who work "in the service of another person (the employer) under an express or implied contract of hire, under which the employer has the right to control the details of work performance." Black's Law Dictionary, at 639. Meanwhile, independent contractors are sometimes described as those "entrusted to undertake a specific project but who [are] left free to do the assigned work and to choose the method for accomplishing it." Id., at 888. New Prime argues that, by 1925, the words "employee" and "independent contractor" had already assumed these distinct meanings. And given that, the company contends, the phrase "contracts of employment" should be understood to refer only to relationships between employers and employees.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Oliveira disagrees. He replies that, while the term "employment" dates back many centuries, the word "employee" only made its first appearance in English in the 1800s. See Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed., Mar. 2014), www.oed.com/view/Entry/61374 (all In- ternet materials as last visited Jan. 9, 2019). At that time, the word from which it derived, "employ," simply meant to "apply (a thing) to some definite purpose." 3 J. Murray, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles 129 (1891). And even in 1910, Black's Law Dictionary reported that the term "employee" had only "become somewhat naturalized in our language." Black's Law Dictionary 421 (2d ed. 1910).
Still, the parties do share some common ground. They agree that the word "employee" eventually came into wide circulation and came to denote those who work for a wage at the direction of another. They agree, too, that all this came to pass in part because the word "employee" didn't suffer from the same "historical baggage" of the older common law term "servant," and because it proved useful when drafting legislation to regulate burgeoning industries and their labor forces in the early 20th century. The parties even agree that the development of the term "employee" may have come to influence and narrow our understanding of the word "employment" in comparatively recent years and may be why today it might signify to some a "relationship between master and servant."
See Carlson, Why the Law Still Can't Tell an Employee When It Sees One and How It Ought To Stop Trying, 22 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 295, 309 (2001) (discussing the "historical baggage" of the term "servant"); Broden, General Rules Determining the Employment Relationship Under Social Security Laws: After Twenty Years an Unsolved Problem, 33 Temp. L. Q. 307, 327 (1960) (describing use of the term "employer-employee," in contradistinction to "master-servant," in the Social Security laws). Legislators searched to find a term that fully encompassed the broad protections they sought to provide and considered an "assortment of vague and uncertain terms," including "'servant,' . . . 'employee,' . . . 'workman,' 'laborer,' 'wage earner,' 'operative,' or 'hireling.'" Carlson, 22 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L., at 308. Eventually "'employee' prevailed, if only by default, and the choice was confirmed by the next wave of protective legislation—workers' compensation laws in the early years of the Twentieth Century." Id., at 309.
Black's Law Dictionary 641 (10th ed. 2014); see also P. Durkin, Release Notes: The Changes in Empathy, Employ, and Empire (Mar. 13, 2014) ("Over time" the meaning of several employ-related words have "reflect[ed] changes in the world of work" and their meaning "shows an increasingly marked narrowing"), online at https://public.oed.com/blog/march-2014-update-release-notes/.
When New Prime finally turns its attention to the term in dispute, it directs us to Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 13 (1915). There and in other cases like it, New Prime notes, courts sometimes used the phrase "contracts of employment" to describe what today we'd recognize as agreements between employers and employees. But this proves little. No one doubts that employer-employee agreements to perform work qualified as "contracts of employment" in 1925—and documenting that fact does nothing to negate the possibility that "contracts of employment" also embraced agreements by independent contractors to perform work. Coming a bit closer to the mark, New Prime eventually cites a handful of early 20th-century legal materials that seem to use the term "contracts of employment" to refer exclusively to employer-employee agreements. But from the record amassed before us, these authorities appear to represent at most the vanguard, not the main body, of contemporaneous usage.
New Prime's effort to explain away the statute's suggestive use of the term "worker" proves no more compelling. The company reminds us that the statute excludes "contracts of employment" for "seamen" and "railroad employees" as well as other transportation workers. And because "seamen" and "railroad employees" included only employees in 1925, the company reasons, we should understand "any other class of workers engaged in . . . interstate commerce" to bear a similar construction. But this argument rests on a precarious premise. At the time of the Act's passage, shipboard surgeons who tended injured sailors were considered "seamen" though they likely served in an independent contractor capacity. Even the term "railroad employees" may have swept more broadly at the time of the Act's passage than might seem obvious today. In 1922, for example, the Railroad Labor Board interpreted the word "employee" in the Transportation Act of 1920 to refer to anyone "engaged in the customary work directly contributory to the operation of the railroads." And the Erdman Act, a statute enacted to address disruptive railroad strikes at the end of the 19th century, seems to evince an equally broad understanding of "railroad employees."
Unable to squeeze more from the statute's text, New Prime is left to appeal to its policy. This Court has said that Congress adopted the Arbitration Act in an effort to counteract judicial hostility to arbitration and establish "a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 24 (1983). To abide that policy, New Prime suggests, we must order arbitration according to the terms of the parties' agreement. But often and by design it is "hard-fought compromise[ ]," not cold logic, that supplies the solvent needed for a bill to survive the legislative process. Board of Governors, FRS v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U. S. 361, 374 (1986). If courts felt free to pave over bumpy statutory texts in the name of more expeditiously advancing a policy goal, we would risk failing to "tak[e] . . . account of " legislative compromises essential to a law's passage and, in that way, thwart rather than honor "the effectuation of congressional intent." Ibid. By respecting the qualifications of §1 today, we "respect the limits up to which Congress was prepared" to go when adopting the Arbitration Act. United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 298 (1970).
Finally, and stretching in a different direction entirely, New Prime invites us to look beyond the Act. Even if the statute doesn't supply judges with the power to compel arbitration in this case, the company says we should order it anyway because courts always enjoy the inherent au- thority to stay litigation in favor of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism of the parties' choosing. That, though, is an argument we decline to tangle with. The courts below did not address it and we granted certiorari only to resolve existing confusion about the application of the Arbitration Act, not to explore other potential avenues for reaching a destination it does not.
"[W]ords generally should be 'interpreted as taking their ordinary . . . meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.'" Ante, at 6 (quoting Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9)). The Court so reaffirms, and I agree. Looking to the period of enactment to gauge statutory meaning ordinarily fosters fidelity to the "regime . . . Congress established." MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 234 (1994).
Congress, however, may design legislation to govern changing times and circumstances. See, e.g., Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 14) ("Congress . . . intended [the Sherman Antitrust Act's] reference to 'restraint of trade' to have 'changing content,' and authorized courts to oversee the term's 'dynamic potential.'" (quoting Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U. S. 717, 731-732 (1988))); SEC v. Zandford, 535 U. S. 813, 819 (2002) (In enacting the Securities Exchange Act, "Congress sought to substitute a philosophy of full disclosure for the philosophy of caveat emptor . . . . Consequently, . . . the statute should be construed not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate its remedial purposes." (internal quotation marks and paragraph break omitted)); H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U. S. 229, 243 (1989) ("The limits of the relationship and continuity concepts that combine to define a [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] pattern . . . cannot be fixed in advance with such clarity that it will always be apparent whether in a particular case a 'pattern of racketeering activity' exists. The development of these concepts must await future cases . . . ."). As these illustrations suggest, sometimes, "[w]ords in statutes can enlarge or contract their scope as other changes, in law or in the world, require their application to new instances or make old applications anachronistic." West v. Gibson, 527 U. S. 212, 218 (1999).

References: v. 
 §2
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 §1
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §56
 §51
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.