The district court had rejected arbitration based partly on the severability clause, reasoning that it allowed courts to decide whether the arbitration agreement itself was valid. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that federal law preempts state-law interpretations disfavoring arbitration. The court clarified that challenges to arbitrability must target the delegation clause specifically, not rely on general severability language. The ruling treats the delegation provision as a separate, severable agreement—consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson.
Employers in the Ninth Circuit should note that this decision strengthens the enforceability of arbitration agreements that incorporate institutional rules like JAMS and explicitly delegate arbitrability questions to arbitrators. The ruling reduces litigation risk over whether disputes must proceed in court or arbitration, provided the delegation language meets the "clear and unmistakable" standard. Plaintiffs' counsel should scrutinize whether delegation clauses are truly clear and whether challenges can be framed to target the delegation itself rather than relying on severability provisions.