Legal Definitions - intertwining doctrine

The intertwining doctrine is a legal principle that allows a court to refuse to send certain claims to arbitration if those claims are deeply connected with other claims that cannot be arbitrated. Specifically, if a dispute involves both claims that are suitable for arbitration (arbitrable claims) and claims that are not (nonarbitrable claims), and all these claims arise from the same event or transaction and are so factually and legally mixed together that they cannot be easily separated, a court *could* decide to keep the entire dispute within the court system.

However, it is crucial to understand that this doctrine has limited practical application today. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) generally favors arbitration and often requires courts to compel arbitration of arbitrable claims, even if they are intertwined with nonarbitrable ones. This means courts typically try to separate the claims and send the arbitrable ones to arbitration, unless there is a very compelling reason not to.

Here are some examples illustrating how the intertwining doctrine *would* apply, keeping in mind its limited modern-day use:

• Construction Project Dispute: Imagine a homeowner who hires a contractor for a major home renovation. The contract includes an arbitration clause for any disagreements. During the project, the homeowner discovers significant structural defects dueulating from the contractor's negligence (a potential breach of contract, which is typically arbitrable). Simultaneously, the homeowner alleges that the contractor intentionally misrepresented the quality of materials used, which might constitute fraud under state law (a claim that, in some contexts, could be nonarbitrable due to public policy or specific statutory protections).

  • How it illustrates the doctrine: The claims for breach of contract (negligence) and fraud are deeply connected to the same renovation project. The same evidence, such as construction plans, material invoices, and expert testimony on workmanship, would be necessary to prove both the contractual failures and the alleged deceptive practices. Because the facts and legal arguments are so mingled, the intertwining doctrine *would* allow a court to decide that it's more efficient and fair to hear both the arbitrable contract claims and the nonarbitrable fraud claims together in court, rather than splitting them into separate proceedings.

• Employment Termination Case: Consider an employee who is fired. Their employment agreement contains a clause requiring arbitration for any disputes related to the contract. The employee then sues, alleging both a breach of their employment contract (e.g., wrongful termination without cause as defined by the contract, an arbitrable claim) and discrimination based on their age under a state anti-discrimination statute (a claim that, depending on the jurisdiction and specific statute, might be considered nonarbitrable or have specific legal avenues outside of arbitration).

  • How it illustrates the doctrine: The facts surrounding the termination—the employer's stated reasons, the employee's performance history, and the company's policies—are central to both proving a breach of contract and demonstrating discriminatory intent. The legal arguments for wrongful termination and age discrimination would draw heavily from the same set of events and evidence. The intertwining doctrine *might* allow a court to keep both the contract dispute and the discrimination claim, arguing that they are too closely linked to be effectively separated into two different forums (arbitration for the contract, court for discrimination).