Vacating a Superior Court order denying a motion to compel arbitration and remanding for an evidentiary hearing, the Massachusetts Supreme Court outlined procedures that trial courts must follow when deciding challenges to motions to compel arbitration not preempted by the FAA.

In St. Fleur v. WPI Cable Systems/Mutron, No. SJC-09961, 2008 WL 44476 (Mass. Jan. 04, 2008), WPI hired St. Fleur to work at an assembly plant in 2000. According to St. Fleur, in 2002 her supervisor gave her a single page to sign that made no mention about arbitration. When she inquired about it, the supervisor misrepresented the nature of the agreement. WPI claimed that it handed St. Fleur a copy of its arbitration policy, a memorandum explaining the policy, and the arbitration agreement itself.

In 2004, St. Fleur sued WPI for discrimination and harassment based on race, sex, and national origin. WPI moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement. St. Fleur opposed the motion arguing the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because her supervisor fraudulently induced her to sign it by misrepresenting its contents.

After a non-evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court denied the motion because WIP bore the risk of St. Fleur's ignorance and that enforcing the arbitration agreement was inappropriate. The Massachusetts Supreme Court transferred the case on its own motion.

The Court vacated the Superior Court's order denying arbitration and remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether the parties entered into an arbitration agreement. Under Federal and Massachusetts law, courts must uphold arbitration agreements "save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." The Court then outlined specific procedures courts must follow to apply Massachusetts's substantive arbitration law for deciding challenges to motions to compel arbitration not preempted by the FAA.

When a party seeking to avoid arbitration contests the existence of an arbitration agreement General Laws c. 251, Sec. 2 requires courts to "proceed summarily" to determine whether an arbitration agreement exists. Although the statute does not define "proceed summarily," other courts in jurisdictions that, like Massachusetts, have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act have defined it "to mean that a judge determines whether there is a dispute as to a material fact." When there is no dispute as to a material fact, the judge resolves the issue as a mater of law. However, if there is a dispute, the judge must conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing and decide the issue.

The Court noted that a judge must conduct the evidentiary hearing because a motion to compel arbitration "is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of an arbitration agreement." Because a right to a jury did not exist in suits arising in equity, like specific performance on a contract, and the statute does not mention a jury trial, the Court declined to create a right to a jury where non-existed before.