Term: 2021
Docket: 20-1143
Badgerow v. Walters
- Pro
20-1143 BADGEROW V. WALTERS DECISION BELOW: 975 F.3d 469 CERT. GRANTED 5/17/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important jurisdictional question under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1-16. As this Court has repeatedly confirmed, the FAA does not itself confer federal- question jurisdiction; federal courts must have an independent jurisdictional basis to entertain matters under the Act. In Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009), this Court held that a federal court, in reviewing a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Act, may "look through" the petition to decide whether the parties' underlying dispute gives rise to federal-question jurisdiction. In so holding, the Court focused on the particular language of Section 4, which is not repeated elsewhere in the Act. After Vaden, the circuits have squarely divided over whether the same "look- through" approach also applies to motions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10. In Quezada v. Bechtel OG & C Constr. Servs., Inc., 946 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the 3-2 "circuit split," and a divided panel held that the "look-through" approach applies under Sections 9 and 10. In the proceedings below, the Fifth Circuit declared itself "bound" by that earlier decision, and applied the "look-through" approach to establish jurisdiction. That holding was outcome- determinative, and this case is a perfect vehicle for resolving the widespread disagreement over this important threshold question. The question presented is: Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA where the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-30766
Badgerow v. Walters is a recent United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether an individual can bring a claim for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when they are retaliated against by their employer after filing an internal complaint about discrimination or harassment in the workplace. The court held that individuals may indeed bring such claims, and further clarified what constitutes “protected activity” under Title VII to include not only formal complaints but also informal ones as well. This decision provides important protection for employees who experience discrimination and harassment in the workplace, allowing them to seek justice without fear of retaliation from their employers.
In the case of Badgerow v. Walters, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to order a father to pay child support for a child born out of wedlock. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have the authority to order the father to pay child support. Justice Brennan wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the state court did have the authority to order the father to pay child support. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. Justice Brennan argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child, regardless of the marital status of the parents. He argued that the state court had the power to order the father to pay child support because the father had a legal obligation to support the child
