Kentucky Revives Enforceability of Employment Arbitration

Kentucky's governor recently signed a bill enabling employers to require an employee or person seeking employment to execute an agreement for arbitration as a condition or precondition of employment. This legislation overrules the Kentucky Supreme Court decision in Northern Kentucky Area Development District v. Danielle Snyder which relied on a Kentucky statute forbidding any “employer [from requiring] as a condition or precondition of employment that any employee or person seeking employment waive, arbitrate, or otherwise diminish any existing or future claim, right, or benefit to which the employee or person seeking employment would otherwise be entitled.” KSA 336.700(2). The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not preempt the Kentucky statute because, instead of targeting arbitration specifically, the  KSA 336.700(2) “is a law that prohibits employers from firing or failing to hire on the condition that the employee or prospective employee waive all existing rights that employee would otherwise have against the employer.”

Kentucky’s Non-Enforcement of Employment Arbitration Agreement Preempted by Federal Arbitration Act?

The Kentucky Supreme Court unanimously refused to enforce an agreement conditioning employment on an agreement to arbitrate. Kentucky Statute 336.700(2) “prohibits employers from conditioning employment on an existing employee’s or prospective employee’s agreement to ‘waive, arbitrate, or otherwise diminish any existing or future claim, right, or benefit to which the employee or person seeking employment would otherwise be entitled . . . .’ ”, according to Northern Kentucky Area Development District v. Danielle Snyder

Several commentators have observed conflict between this Kentucky Supreme Court ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s broad holding on Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption of such anti-arbitration state law:

Jackson Lewis PC said “[t]he Kentucky Supreme Court’s opinion appears to be at odds with recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on FAA preemption of state laws that treat arbitration agreements differently than other contracts, see, e.g., Kindred Nursing Centers Lmtd P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 368 (2016).”

Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP said “[i]t seems difficult to reconcile the Snyder decision with the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis … that expressly upheld mandatory arbitration agreements or its 2017 decision in Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark that prohibits rules that single out arbitration for unfavorable treatment.”

Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC said “[i]mportantly, the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s decision appears to conflict with recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent upholding the FAA’s broad preemptive effect. See, e.g., Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, 137 S.Ct. 1421 (2017).”

I commented on Epic Systems here and on Kindred Nursing here. Kindred Nursing also involved a decision by Kentucky’s Supreme Court.

Supreme Court: Federal Arbitration Law Preempts State Law on Nursing Home Power of Attorney

By a 7-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court decision refusing to enforce nursing-home arbitration agreements entered into by agents with power of attorney on behalf of their principals.

The Kentucky Supreme Court "fails to put arbitration agreements on an equal plane with other contracts," according to the opinion, authored by Justice Elana Kagan. "By requiring an explicit statement before an agent can relinquish her principal’s right to go to court and receive a jury trial, the court did exactly what this Court has barred: adopt a legal rule hinging on the primary characteristic of an arbitration agreement."

Commentary by University of North Carolina law professor Mark Weidemaier

The Hill coverage

SCOTUS blog coverage