Nitro-lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Eddie Lee Howard et al. (568 U.S. 17)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 26, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 568 U.S. 17 · 133 S. Ct. 500
- Decided
- November 26, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2012
- Vote
- 9–0
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. State courts rather than federal courts are most frequently called upon to apply the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., including the Act’s national policy favoring arbitration. It is a matter of great importance, therefore, that state supreme courts adhere to a correct interpretation of the legislation. Here, the Oklahoma Supreme Court failed to do so. By declaring the non-competition agreements in two employment contracts null and void, rather than leaving that determination to the arbitrator in the first instance, the state court ignored a basic tenet of the Act’s substantive arbitration law. The decision must be vacated. * * * This dispute arises from a contract between petitioner Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C., and two of its former employees. Nitro-Lift contracts with operators of oil and gas wells to provide services that enhance production. Respondents Eddie Lee Howard and Shane D. Schneider entered a confidentiality and noncompetition agreement with Nitro-Lift that contained the following arbitration clause: “‘Any dispute, difference or unresolved question between Nitro-Lift and the Employee (collectively the “Disputing Parties”) shall be settled by arbitration by a single arbitrator mutually agreeable to the Disputing Parties in an arbitration proceeding conducted in Houston, Texas in accordance with the rules existing at…
Excerpt of a 9,186-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.