Rent-a-center, West, Inc. v. Antonio Jackson (561 U.S. 63)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 21, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 561 U.S. 63 · 130 S. Ct. 2772
- Decided
- June 21, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U. S. C. §§ 1-16, a district court may decide a claim that an arbitration agreement is unconscionable, where the agreement explicitly assigns that decision to the arbitrator. I On February 1, 2007, the respondent here, Antonio Jackson, filed an employment-discrimination suit under Rev. Stat. § 1977, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, against his former employer in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The defendant and petitioner here, Rent-A-Center, West, Inc., filed a motion under the FAA to dismiss or stay the proceedings, 9 U. S. C. § 3, and to compel arbitration, § 4. Rent-A-Center argued that the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims (Agreement), which Jackson signed on February 24, 2003, as a condition of his employment there, precluded Jackson from pursuing his claims in court. The Agreement provided for arbitration of all “past, present or future” disputes arising out of Jackson’s employment with Rent-A-Center, including “claims for discrimination” and “claims for violation of any federal . . . law.” App. 29-30. It also provided that “[t]he Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this…
Excerpt of a 22,960-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.