Opinion ID: 157356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Federal Arbitration Act Applicability

Text: 5 As a preliminary matter, we must determine if the Federal Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act) governs our consideration of the arbitration agreement at issue in this case. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16. The provisions of the Arbitration Act represent a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. 500 U.S. 20, 25, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In substance, the Arbitration Act mandates that arbitration agreements contained in contracts involving commerce 2 shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract, 9 U.S.C. § 2, and provides for orders compelling arbitration when one party fails to comply with a valid arbitration agreement, 9 U.S.C. § 4. The Arbitration Act thus creates a presumption in favor of arbitrability and courts must resolve all doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues in favor of arbitration. Armijo, 72 F.3d at 797-98. 6 However, the Arbitration Act does not apply to arbitration agreements contained in contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. 9 U.S.C. § 1. Mr. Shankle argues the Agreement falls within the § 1 exemption because he is a member of a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce. This court rejected a similar argument in McWilliams v. Logicon, Inc., 143 F.3d 573 (10th Cir.1998). In McWilliams, we held that § 1 is to be construed narrowly to apply only to employees actually engaged in the channels of interstate commerce. Id. at 576. Accordingly, we concluded that even though the defendant employer's products and services affected interstate commerce, § 1 did not apply because defendant's employees, including plaintiff, did not directly engage in the channels of interstate commerce. Id. Likewise, even though B-G Maintenance's services affect interstate commerce at some level, Mr. Shankle's positions as janitor and shift manager did not directly affect the channels of commerce. Therefore, Mr. Shankle's claims are not insulated from Federal Arbitration Act coverage and we must apply the federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within coverage of the Act. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).