Opinion ID: 215760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Howsam Framework: Does the Dispute Raise a Question of Arbitrability?

Text: In Howsam, the Court observed that [a]lthough [it] has ... long recognized and enforced a `liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements,' 537 U.S. at 83, 123 S.Ct. 588 (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)), it has also carved out an exception to this policy: the threshold question of whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the `question of arbitrability,' is `an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.' Howsam, 537 U.S. at 83, 123 S.Ct. 588 (quoting AT & T Techs., 475 U.S. at 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415; First Options, 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920). In other words, questions of arbitrability are subject to a presumption against arbitration and in favor of judicial resolution. This difference in treatment is animated by the principle that a party can be forced to arbitrate only those issues it specifically has agreed to submit to arbitration and should not be compelled to arbitrate arbitrability unless it committed itself to doing so. First Options, 514 U.S. at 945, 115 S.Ct. 1920. But Howsam emphasized that question of arbitrability is a term of art with a narrow scope: The Court has found the phrase applicable in the kind of narrow circumstance where contracting parties would likely have expected a court to have decided the gateway matter, where they are not likely to have thought that they had agreed that an arbitrator would do so, and, consequently, where reference of the gateway dispute to the court avoids the risk of forcing parties to arbitrate a matter that they may well not have agreed to arbitrate. Howsam, 537 U.S. at 83-84, 123 S.Ct. 588. Consequently, Howsam specified that only certain substantive gateway matters are subject to the anti-arbitrability presumption, id. at 85, 123 S.Ct. 588 (quoting Revised Unif. Arbitration Act of 2000 § 6 cmt. 2, 7 U.L.A. 13 (Supp.2002)), and identified two categories of disputes where [that presumption clearly applies]: (1) disputes `about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause'; and (2) disagreements `about whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy,' Kristian, 446 F.3d at 39 (quoting Howsam, 537 U.S. at 84, 123 S.Ct. 588); see also id. (clarifying that [e]xamples of the former include whether an arbitration contract binds parties that did not sign the agreement[,] and whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the subsequent corporation, and examples of the latter include whether a labor-management layoff controversy was covered by the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement[,] and whether a clause providing for arbitration of various grievances covers claims for damages for breach of a no-strike agreement). In contrast, `procedural' questions [that] grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide. Howsam, 537 U.S. at 84, 123 S.Ct. 588 (quoting John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 557, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964)) (internal quotation mark omitted). In defending against the arbitration demand, the Hotel maintains that the dispute between it and the Union implicates a substantive question of arbitrability and, as such, should presumptively be for the court to decide. The contrary results required by Freedom WLNE-TV and like cases, the Hotel insists, demonstrate that our precedents are inconsistent with the Court's recent caselaw and should be repudiated. [5] The Union counters that Howsam requires no reconsideration of our law; that the parties' dispute does not fit into the types of exceptional questions Howsam reserves presumptively for the courts; and that even if their dispute were to be characterized as a substantive question of arbitrability, the presumption in favor of judicial resolution would nonetheless be overcome by the parties' clearly manifested intent to arbitrate a dispute over the interpretation of the duration clause of the Agreement. We agree with the Union. The Hotel's absolutist position that contract expiration issues are necessarily substantive questions of arbitrability proves too much. Not all questions of contract duration are alike. [6] Cf. Granite Rock Co., 130 S.Ct. at 2860 n. 11. (emphasizing that it is not the mere labeling of a dispute for contract law purposes, but whether the parties consented to arbitrate the dispute, that determines whether an issue is arbitrable). In this instance, the parties dispute the meaning of language in the duration clause of the Agreementa classic issue of contract construction and one the parties clearly contemplated would be resolved by an arbitrator. This type of grievance concerns neither the validity of the arbitration clause nor its applicability to the underlying dispute between the parties. Green Tree, 539 U.S. at 452, 123 S.Ct. 2402. Indeed, the parties do not contest that the Agreement was valid, that they were subject to its requirements, and that the substantive scope of the arbitration clause is clear. The present dispute is therefore not a substantive question of arbitrability but a matter of contract interpretation [that] should be for the arbitrator, not the courts, to decide. Id. at 453, 123 S.Ct. 2402. In any event, even if we were to agree with the Hotel that a duration dispute of the type at issue here could be characterized as a question of substantive arbitrability and thus presumptively reserved for judicial determination, the presumption would be overcome by the clear and unmistakable intent of the parties to arbitrate controversies such as the one raised here. See First Options, 514 U.S. at 943, 115 S.Ct. 1920. The breadth of the arbitration clause, which covers any disputes over [the] interpretation or application of the Agreement, presents an insurmountable impediment to the Hotel's position.