ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Sep 4, 2025

In an ongoing arbitral proceeding a procedural issue is entrusted to the arbitrator or arbitral body – not the court – for resolution within that proceeding

.

When Petitioners-Appellees [Petitioners] were hired as employees of Twitter, Inc.,  now known as X Corp. and owned by Respondent-Appellant X Holdings Corp. [hereinafter Respondent and together referred to as “Twitter” in the instant action], Petitioners signed “Dispute Resolution Agreements” [DRAs] committing themselves to resolving any employment-related disputes with Twitter in binding individual arbitration. After Petitioners were fired by Twitter, they brought various employment-related claims to the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services [JAMS], the arbitral body identified in their DRAs, pursuant to the then-current JAMS Rules.

Twitter had argued that the DRAs provided for a pro-rata split, while JAMS, pointing to its own rules and policies, incorporated by reference into the DRAs,  contended that Twitter was committed to paying all but the case initiation fees as a precondition to JAMS’s administering the arbitration. 

Relying on a clause in the arbitration agreement that provided that “any disputes [over arbitration fees would] be resolved by the Arbitrator” – and not JAMS – Twitter refused to pay. As the result of JAMS refusing to appoint any arbitrators without the fees, "the proceedings ground to a halt". At the request of the parties, JAMS stayed the proceedings pending resolution of the fee issue. 

Rather than fronting the fees themselves or asking JAMS to terminate the arbitral proceedings and pursuing other remedies, Petitioners sued to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. §4, arguing that, by refusing to pay the fees allocated to it by JAMS, Twitter was “refusing to arbitrate” in accordance with the terms of the DRAs.

For the reasons explained in the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit's  opinion [see the link to the Circuit Court's opinion provided below], the Circuit Court opined that whether a party has failed to pay the arbitration fees necessary in an ongoing arbitral proceeding "is a procedural issue entrusted to the arbitrator or arbitral body – not the court – for resolution within that proceeding". 

Thus, the Circuit Court held that once the parties are before their chosen arbitral body, failure or refusal to pay fees alone is not a “failure, neglect, or refusal . . . to arbitrate” and a "federal district court is empowered to address the matter under 9 U.S.C. §4". 

Accordingly, the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court "to the contrary" and remanded the matter to the district court.  

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.


NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com