Opinion ID: 750078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Strong Federal Policy Favoring Arbitration--the FAA

Text: 29 The issue of arbitrability must be analyzed in light of the strong public policy favoring arbitration, and the strong policies behind the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3353-54, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941-42, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). Congress enacted the FAA in 1925 to overcome centuries of judicial hostility to arbitration agreements, see Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 219-21, & n. 6, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 1241-43, & n. 6, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985), and intended courts to enforce arbitration agreements and to place such agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 271, 115 S.Ct. 834, 838, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 30 The FAA provides that a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract ... 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 (1994). Commerce is broadly defined in this context, and is coextensive with the reach of Congress's Commerce Clause power. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., 513 U.S. at 268, 115 S.Ct. at 836 (construing the reach of the FAA to the limits of Congress' Commerce Clause power). The FAA clearly covers the enrollment agreement between the parties in this case--an agreement to pay money for educational services. The parties do not dispute the facial applicability of the FAA. 31 If there are no questions as to the validity of the arbitration agreement itself, a court asked to compel arbitration must determine whether the arbitration agreement in fact covers the dispute in question (assuming the agreement does not assign that question to the arbitrator). See First Options v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 1923-24, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995); Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 473 U.S. at 626, 105 S.Ct. at 3353-54. In construing an arbitration agreement, questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 24, 103 S.Ct. at 941. 32 The Bercovitches do not argue that their dispute does not fall within the literal terms of the arbitrability clause. The agreement between the parties here--to arbitrate [a]ny and all disputes arising out of [the school's] By-Laws or their application or the application of any rule, regulation, policy, resolution or act or contract implemented or carried out pursuant to these By-Laws--covers the claims that the Bercovitches have brought against the school. The Bercovitches have disputed the application of the school's disciplinary policies to Jason. This is clearly a grievance with a regulation or policy and under the FAA is subject to compulsory arbitration.