Also known as: severance doctrine · severance · severed · sever · severability doctrine · severability
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
3 senses
A principle permitting courts to enforce the lawful portions of an agreement while excising only the invalid provisions. Courts apply the doctrine when the illegal clause is not central to the parties' bargain and severance preserves the overall contractual relationship without endorsing illegality.
A principle permitting courts to enforce the lawful portions of an agreement while excising only the invalid provisions. Courts apply the doctrine when the illegal clause is not central to the parties' bargain and severance preserves the overall contractual relationship without endorsing illegality.
Dolores Diaz contracted to sell growing crops attached to her land to Duarte Shipping. The crops could be severed without material harm. The doctrine of severance treated the transaction as a sale of goods once identification occurred, allowing the contract to proceed under UCC rules for movable items.
A mechanism allowing courts to separate joined claims, parties, or charges into distinct proceedings. The doctrine prevents prejudice from improper joinder while avoiding dismissal of the entire action.
Daphne Doyle lived with her nonmarital child and the child's father, Demetrius Douglas, as a family unit until her death. The state immediately removed the child from Douglas without any hearing. A court applied procedural severance rules to require a fair process determining whether the parental relationship should end.
Due process protects the custodial interests of an unmarried father who has established a family unit with his nonmarital child. The state cannot automatically terminate that relationship upon the mother's death without a fair hearing to determine whether severance of parental rights is warranted.
A mechanism allowing courts to separate joined claims, parties, or charges into distinct proceedings. The doctrine prevents prejudice from improper joinder while avoiding dismissal of the entire action.
Due process protects the custodial interests of an unmarried father who has established a family unit with his nonmarital child. The state cannot automatically terminate that relationship upon the mother's death without a fair hearing to determine whether severance of parental rights is warranted.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Dorothy Daniels signed an employment contract with Dawson Steel containing an unconscionable class-action waiver. The court invoked the doctrine of severance to strike only the waiver while enforcing the remainder of the arbitration agreement because the invalid term was collateral to the main bargain.
Mary Armendariz and Dolores Olague-Rodgers were hired by Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. in July and August of 1995 for positions in the Provider Relations Group and were later promoted to supervisory roles with annual salaries of $38,000. As a condition of their employment, the employees signed application forms and separate arbitration agreements that required binding arbitration of any dispute arising from termination of employment. The arbitration clause provided that the employees' exclusive remedies would be limited to back wages from the date of discharge until the arbitration award and expressly excluded other remedies such as reinstatement and injunctive relief. On June 20, 1996, the employees were informed that their positions were being eliminated and that they were terminated. During their employment, they alleged that supervisors and coworkers engaged in sexually based harassment and discrimination, and they claimed the termination occurred because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation. The employees filed a complaint against the employer and its parent company alleging a cause of action for violation of the FEHA as well as tort and contract claims for wrongful termination, seeking general damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and costs. The employer filed a motion to compel arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, supported by declarations. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the arbitration agreement was an adhesion contract containing provisions so one-sided as to shock the conscience, including the requirement that only employees arbitrate claims and the limitation of damages to backpay. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, holding that the damages provision was unconscionable but that the remainder of the agreement should be enforced after severance. The Supreme Court granted review of the case.
View case1 common questions
A court refuses severance when the illegal clause is central to the parties' bargain or when enforcement of the remainder would condone an illegal scheme. The overarching inquiry is whether the interests of justice would be furthered by preserving the contractual relationship.
Dwight Dorsey and Diamond Manufacturing disputed compensation under a pesticide statute containing an arbitration provision. When one party defaulted, the doctrine of severance allowed the court to isolate the arbitration default from other registration issues and handle them in distinct proceedings.
Following the 1978 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Environmental Protection Agency gained authority to consider data submitted by one registrant to support the registration of pesticides by follow-on applicants, provided the applicant offers compensation to the original data submitter. If the parties fail to agree on the amount of compensation, either may initiate binding arbitration, and the arbitrator's findings are final except for review based on fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. Appellees are thirteen large firms that had submitted research data to the EPA for pesticide registrations. After the 1978 amendments took effect, the firms filed suit in the Southern District of New York challenging the data-consideration and compensation provisions on constitutional grounds, later amending the complaint to include an Article III claim regarding the arbitration mechanism. The district court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on their Article III claims. The District Court, rather than striking down the statutory limitation on judicial review, enjoined the entire FIFRA data use and compensation scheme. The Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. On remand in this case, appellees amended their complaint to reflect that EPA had, in fact, considered their data in support of other registration applications. The amended complaint also alleged that data submitted by appellee Stauffer Chemical Company had been used in connection with registrations by PPG Industries, Inc., and Drexel Chemical Company. Stauffer had invoked the arbitration provisions of § 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) against PPG, and appellees entered in evidence the award of the arbitration panel, handed down on June 28, 1983. The district court reinstated its prior judgment enjoining the operation of the data-consideration provisions as violative of Article III. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on EPA's direct appeal.
View caseDaniel Diaz challenged multiple provisions of a federal health-care statute. The doctrine of severance permitted the court to invalidate only the individual mandate while preserving the remainder of the Act because the provisions were not mutually dependent.
In 2010 Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act containing hundreds of provisions across ten titles. The Act requires most Americans to maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage beginning in 2014 or else make a shared responsibility payment calculated as a percentage of household income subject to a floor and ceiling. The Act also expands Medicaid by requiring participating states to cover adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level while increasing federal funding but threatening loss of all Medicaid funds for noncompliance. On the day the President signed the Act Florida and twelve other states filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida challenging the individual mandate provisions under Article I. The original plaintiffs were later joined by eighteen additional states several individuals and the National Federation of Independent Business. The District Court held that the individual mandate exceeded congressional power and could not be severed from the remainder of the Act so it struck down the entire statute. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that the individual mandate exceeded congressional power but held the provision severable from the rest of the Act while unanimously upholding the Medicaid expansion. Other courts of appeals reached conflicting results on the mandate with the Sixth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit upholding it under the commerce power and the Fourth Circuit applying the Anti-Injunction Act to bar review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eleventh Circuit judgment on both the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion and appointed amici curiae to address severability and the Anti-Injunction Act. The penalty for noncompliance with the individual mandate first becomes enforceable in 2014. The present suit seeks to restrain its future collection. The Act describes the payment as a penalty rather than a tax. It directs that the payment be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes but bars the IRS from using criminal prosecutions or levies to enforce it.
View case3 common questions
Misjoinder of parties is never grounds for dismissal. Instead the court may sever any claim against a party on just terms, allowing the action to proceed without the improperly joined elements.
The court may order separate trials or sever defendants when joinder appears to prejudice a defendant or the government. The decision rests on whether severance promotes the fair determination of guilt or innocence.
Yes. Due process protects the custodial interests of an unmarried father who has established a family unit with his nonmarital child. The state cannot automatically sever that relationship upon the mother's death without a fair hearing.
…We appointed H. Bartow Farr III to brief and argue in support of the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment with respect to severability, and Robert A. Long to brief and argue the proposition that the Anti-Injunction Act bars the current challenges to the individual mandate. 565 U. S. 1048 (2011). Both amici have ably…