Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams
220 Cal. Rptr. 807, 40 Cal. 3d 406, 709 P.2d 826 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, federal substantive law governs the enforcement of arbitration provisions in a collective bargaining agreement, preempting state law doctrines that would scrutinize the fairness of the arbitration machinery itself.
Facts:
- On April 1, 1980, professional football player Fred Dryer entered into an employment contract with the Los Angeles Rams.
- The contract incorporated the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NFL players' union and management, which mandated binding arbitration for contract disputes.
- The CBA's standard arbitration procedure (Article VII) allowed for appeal to a neutral outside arbitrator.
- However, a separate provision in the CBA allowed the NFL Commissioner to unilaterally withdraw a grievance from the standard process if it involved the 'integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.'
- If a grievance were withdrawn, the Commissioner—who is appointed and paid by team management—would exclusively hear the dispute and any subsequent appeal.
- A dispute arose when the Rams removed Dryer from the team's active roster, which Dryer alleged was a breach of his contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred Dryer sued the Los Angeles Rams and several individual defendants in the Los Angeles Superior Court, a state trial court.
- The Rams filed a petition in the superior court to compel arbitration based on the terms of Dryer's employment contract.
- The superior court denied the petition to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration procedure unconscionable under California law.
- The Rams appealed the superior court's order to the California Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does federal labor law preempt a state court's inquiry into the fairness of an arbitration procedure established by a collective bargaining agreement when considering a motion to compel arbitration?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaus, J.
Yes, federal law preempts a state court's fairness inquiry. A court's role in enforcing an arbitration provision within a collective bargaining agreement governed by federal law is limited and does not permit an analysis of the procedure's inherent fairness under state law doctrines. The court reasoned that this dispute falls under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), which establishes that federal substantive law governs. National labor policy strongly favors enforcing arbitration agreements as negotiated by the parties to ensure industrial peace and uniform application of CBAs. Applying state law, such as California's 'minimum levels of integrity' standard from Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc., is incompatible with this federal policy and would exert a 'disruptive influence' on collective bargaining. The court's inquiry should be limited to whether the dispute is arbitrable under the contract. As an alternative holding, the court found that even under the Graham standard, the arbitration procedure was enforceable because the Commissioner's potential intervention was speculative, remote, and applicable only to a narrow class of disciplinary matters, not a contract dispute like Dryer's.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Bird, C. J.
No, federal law does not preempt a state court's fairness inquiry, although arbitration is appropriate in this specific case. Chief Justice Bird concurred in the judgment to compel arbitration but dissented from the majority's broad preemption holding. The concurrence argued that the possibility of the Commissioner's intervention was too 'purely speculative' to invalidate the arbitration agreement in this case. However, it strongly disagreed that federal law forbids state courts from ever conducting a Graham-style inquiry into whether an arbitration procedure is unconscionable or 'essentially preclude[s] the possibility of a fair hearing.' The dissent argued that federal labor policy, which is intended to promote industrial peace, is not served by enforcing arbitration machinery that is fundamentally biased, and that federal case law, such as Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, recognizes that contractual machinery must operate with 'minimum levels of integrity.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the preemptive scope of federal labor law over state contract law doctrines in the context of collective bargaining agreements. By holding that state courts cannot apply state-specific 'fairness' or 'unconscionability' standards like the Graham rule to CBA arbitration clauses, the case narrows the grounds for challenging such clauses. It directs courts to adopt the more deferential federal approach, which limits judicial inquiry to the question of arbitrability. This strengthens the finality of collectively bargained dispute resolution mechanisms and makes it more difficult for individual employees to sidestep arbitration by raising state-law challenges to the agreed-upon procedure's impartiality.
