Sotomayor, J., dissenting
arbitration agreement should not be expected to realize that she is giving up access to that procedural device.
In any event, as Justice Kagan explains, the employment contract that Frank Varela signed went further. It states that “‘any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to[] the employment relationship between the parties[] shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration.’” Post, at 2 (quoting App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a). It adds that Varela and Lamps Plus “consent to the resolution by arbitration of all claims that may hereafter arise in connection with [Varela’s] employment.” Id., at 24a–25a. And it provides for arbitration “‘in accordance with’” the rules of the arbitral forum, which in turn allow for class arbitration. Post, at 3 (opinion of Kagan, J.) (citing App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a–26a). That is enough to persuade me that the contract was at least ambiguous as to whether Varela in fact agreed that no class-action procedures would be available in arbitration if he and his co-workers all suffered the same harm “relating to” and “in connection with” their “employment.” See id., at 24a–25a. And the court below was correct to turn to state law to resolve the ambiguity.
The Court today reads the FAA to pre-empt the neutral principle of state contract law on which the court below relied. I cannot agree. I also note that the majority reaches its holding without actually agreeing that the contract is ambiguous. See ante, at 5 (“[W]e defer to the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation and application of state law”). The concurrence, meanwhile, offers reasons to conclude that the contract unambiguously precludes class arbitration, see ante, at 1–2, and n. (opinion of Thomas, J.), which would avoid the need to displace state law at all.[1] This Court normally acts with great solicitude when
- ↑ The majority notes that I criticize it for not checking for such an off-ramp while being unable to take one myself. See ante, at 6, n. 3. But
