Question

PARAPHRASE THIS PARAGRAPH

The Court then rejected each of the arguments raised by the NLRB and the individual employees.  First, the Court held that the FAA’s “saving clause”—which provides that arbitration agreements are presumptively enforceable “save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract”—does not “offer[] . . . refuge for defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue.” In other words, because this argument specifically singled out “individualized arbitration proceedings” as invalid, the “saving clause” was not implicated, and there was no “generally applicable contract defense[]” to overcome the presumption of enforceability.

Answer 1

Arbitration is a process to dissolve legal disputes between two or more parties with the help of arbitrators. it is a common agreement that two concerning parties agree to follow and respect. It saves them from the expenses of a litigation.

FAA( Federal Arbitration Act ) enacted in 1925 was to safeguard and fortify the execution of arbitration agreements. The U.S Supreme Court overholds the FAA over the state legislature in terms of any disputes relating to enforcement of arbitration agreements.

In this particular case, the court has rejected each argument raised by NLRB( National Labour Relation Board) and the individual employees. Court held the "Saving Clause" which clearly states that the arbitration agreement has to be enforced except in some cases.

The court said that the argument raised was against "individualized arbitration proceedings" i.e the agreement was between the employer and each employee individually. This practice according to the court, does not nullify the "saving clause" and there was no contract defense in the arbitration agreement, to begin with. Hence, the agreement is enforceable.