|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards under Federal Arbitration Act Limited to Grounds Authorized in the Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 03, 2008 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that when parties to arbitration agreements utilize the expedited review procedure provided by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA” or the “Act”), the judicial review available to them is limited to that which is provided for by the Act. Accordingly, parties to an arbitration agreement which contains a provision calling for expanded judicial review may not rely upon the FAA for enforcement of that provision. Report Link Supreme Court Rejects Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Even By Express Agreement (pdf).Hogan & Hartson LLP - April 03, 2008 This update discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc. which strictly limits the scope of review of an arbitration decision and the grounds for vacating an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Report Link Supreme Court Reaffirms Limited Judicial Review of Arbitration Decisions Under FAA.Ford & Harrison LLP - April 02, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision reaffirming the limited grounds for judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). See Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. (March 25, 2008). Although Hall Street is not an employment case, the Court’s decision is relevant to employers because its reaffirmation of the limited grounds for judicial review of an arbitration award applies to awards issued by arbitrators in employment-related matters. Report Link Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration as Proper Forum for Challenges to Validity of Agreements with Arbitration Clauses.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 04, 2008 The United States Supreme Court has held that in cases arising under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), where a party challenges the enforceability of a contract that contains an arbitration clause, the arbitrator designated under the agreement must determine the validity of the agreement. State laws giving primary jurisdiction under such circumstances to another forum, whether judicial or administrative, are pre-empted by the FAA, the Court stated in its February 20 ruling. Report Link Federal Arbitration Act Trumps State Laws Lodging Primary Jurisdiction in State Administrative Forums.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 04, 2008 In Preston v. Ferrer, No. 06-1463 (Feb. 20, 2008) ("Preston"), the U.S. Supreme Court once again upheld the supremacy of the Federal Arbitration Act and confirmed that state laws that compel parties to submit claims to a state administrative forum are not enforceable and cannot defeat the parties' valid, enforceable agreement to submit such claims to arbitration. In a decision extending far beyond the narrow California state law at issue, employers across the nation have been given an additional tool for enforcing arbitration agreements in the employment context. Report Link Supreme Court Holds that FAA Overrides Conflicting State Law Jurisdictional Provision.Ford & Harrison LLP - February 25, 2008 Citing the national policy favoring arbitration established in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Southland Corp. v. Keating, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the contractual agreement to arbitrate disputes preempts contrary state law frameworks. Writing for the Court in Preston v. Ferrer, decided on February 20, 2008, Justice Ginsberg held that the FAA overrides state laws that would lodge primary jurisdiction in another forum beside arbitration, regardless of whether that forum is judicial or administrative. Report Link Arbitration Agreements: Make Sure Your Employees Actually Sign Them.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - February 07, 2008 Many employers utilize binding arbitration to resolve employment-related disputes with their employees. The advantages of binding arbitration include savings of time and cost, limited discovery, a more expedited process than court procedures, and, hopefully, smaller attorney's fees. Report Link Court Declares Law Firm's Alternate Dispute Resolution Program Unconscionable and Unenforceable.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 22, 2007 The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that an employer's alternate dispute resolution ("ADR") program was unconscionable under California law and thus was unenforceable. Davis v. O'Melveny & Meyers, No. 04-56039 (9th Cir. May 14, 2007). Specifically, the court found that the ADR program was procedurally unconscionable because it did not allow employees to opt out of the program. The court also found that the notice provision, the confidentiality provision, a limited exemption from arbitration for the employer, and the limitation on initiating administrative actions were overbroad and substantively unconscionable. The court declined to strike the overly broad provisions and declared the ADR program void. Report Link Ninth Circuit Rules That Law Firm’s Dispute Resolution Program Is Unconscionable.Ford & Harrison LLP - May 21, 2007 In yet another decision explaining what is, and is not, acceptable in employment-related mandatory arbitration procedures, the Ninth Circuit held that the program utilized by law firm O’Melveny & Myers (OMM) was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Report Link Arbitration of Employment Disputes in the Hospitality Industry.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - September 27, 2006 Over the past several years, the use of mandatory arbitration agreements has increased among hospitality employers. Such agreements generally require employees, as a condition of employment, to waive their right to a jury trial and have their disputes resolved by an arbitrator. A recent study published by the Center for Hospitality Research at Cornell University's School of Hotel Administration supports this trend, finding that arbitration has significant benefits over litigation as a way for hospitality industry employers to resolve employees' claims of discrimination. Report Link NLRB Finds Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Illegal.Ford & Harrison LLP - July 19, 2006 The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has held that a union-free employer committed an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by maintaining a mandatory arbitration policy as a condition of employment because that policy could inhibit employees from filing charges with the Board. See U-Haul Co. of California, Case 32-CA-20665-1, 347 NLRB 34 (June 8, 2006). Report Link There is yet another reason for employers to adopt mandatory arbitration policies (pdf).Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP - June 14, 2006 Arecent Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision provides
yet another reason
why employers should consider
implementing mandatory arbitration
policies for resolving employment
disputes with their employees. Report Link Legal Alert: Fifth Circuit Finds USERRA Claims Subject to Arbitration.Ford & Harrison LLP - May 18, 2006 The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) are subject to arbitration in accordance with employment-related individual arbitration agreements. Report Link Cost Provisions May Jeopardize the Enforceability of Agreements to Arbitrate Employment Disputes (pdf).Vedder Price - April 07, 2006 It is established law that an agreement between employer
and employee to arbitrate employment disputes, including
discrimination claims, is enforceable and precludes state
or federal court litigation of such disputes. Report Link Supreme Court Says Binding Arbitration Provisions Can Survive Otherwise Invalid Agreement.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 03, 2006 The U. S. Supreme Court has taken another step to solidify the enforceability of private agreements to arbitrate disputes. In a case arising outside the employment context, the Court has ruled that a contract may be invalid in all other respects, but the arbitration provisions are severable, may survive, and may be enforced. For employers implementing pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate job-related claims, this decision indicates the strength of such provisions independent of the legal sufficiency or validity of other contract terms. Report Link Use of AAA Rules for Selecting Arbitrator in Lieu of Unenforceable Selection Clause Upheld.Ford & Harrison LLP - February 20, 2006 The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial court's order to use the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) rules for selecting an arbitrator after severing an unenforceable arbitrator selection clause from an employment related arbitration agreement. See McMullen v. Meijer, Inc. (Jan. 13, 2006). In this case, the employee challenged the arbitrator selection clause because it permitted the employer to chose a panel of arbitrators from which the parties would select an individual to arbitrate the employee's termination. In 2004, the Sixth Circuit held that this clause was unenforceable and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the clause could be severed from the arbitration agreement. Report Link When Drafting an Arbitration Agreement, It’s Important to Think Ahead!Helms Mulliss & Wicker - September 29, 2005 Many companies use arbitration as the preferred method of resolving disputes with their employees. Some companies enter into binding arbitration agreements with every employee at the outset of employment, while other companies regularly include arbitration clauses in executive employment contracts. Unfortunately, not all companies take the time to think ahead about the terms and conditions of these agreements that control how the arbitration process will work. As a result, when disputes do arise, companies are sometimes surprised at the arbitration process they are required to follow. Report Link First Circuit Provides Guidance to Employers Who Wish to Communicate Contractual Arrangements to Their Employees.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 17, 2005 In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered what notice is adequate to bind employees to mandatory arbitration of employment disputes, finding that an employer’s mass e-mail to its employees announcing a new mandatory dispute resolution policy and providing a hyperlink to the policy was insufficient notice. Report Link A Marriage Made In Heaven, Modified On Earth, And Stuck In Purgatory.Jones Walker - August 11, 2004 Employment relationships, like marriages, don't always work out. At the beginning of any relationship, we always hope for the best, but often have to prepare for the worst. Like a prenuptial agreement for the betrothed, an arbitration agreement is one way an employer and applicant can plan for future disputes. Many employers consider arbitration an easy, cost-effective, private way to bring an end to what has become an unproductive employment union. However, if you don't cross your t's and dot your i's when putting the agreement in writing, a discharge can become just as ugly as a divorce. Report Link The Scope of Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards [PDF File].Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP - December 10, 2003 If recent reported decisions are any guide, parties to arbitration agreements do not always find appropriate the standards used by federal courts to review arbitral awards. Report Link Supreme Court Decides That Availability of Class Action Proceedings Arbitrations Will Depend Upon Arbitration Agreement Language [PDF File].Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP - July 01, 2003 On June 23, 2003, the United States Supreme Court vacated two multimillion-dollar class arbitration awards holding that the question of whether an arbitration agreement forbids class arbitration should be decided by the arbitrator rather than a court, particularly where the agreement gives the arbitrator broad authority. Report Link Limiting Classwide Employment Claims Through Mandatory Arbitration Agreements [PDF File, p.3].Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP - May 01, 2003 Despite a series of decisions from the United States Supreme Court endorsing mandatory arbitration of employment disputes, there are still many questions employers face when drafting and implementing
alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") programs. Report Link Arbitration Awards Impact Title Vii Claims [PDF File, p.2].Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP - April 30, 2003 A negative arbitration decision does not prevent a discharged employee from filing a Title VII action in federal court. However, a recent decision by a federal court of appeals will make it much more difficult for such a claim to survive summary judgment. Report Link Federal Appeals Court Orders Rehearing of Pro-Employer Arbitration Decision in EEOC v. Luce Forward Case.Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP - February 13, 2003 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ordered a rehearing of last year's decision by one of its 3-judge panels that concluded that employers may require arbitration of federal Title VII discrimination and harassment claims as a condition of employment. Report Link Arbitration Agreement Is Not Enforceable.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - September 01, 2002 An arbitration agreement was found unenforceable by the Ninth Circuit because its fee and discovery provisions and its limitations on what issues could be arbitrated rendered the agreement procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Report Link Recent Seventh Circuit Decision Highlights Pitfall to Avoid in Drafting Mandatory Arbitration Provisions.Winston & Strawn - April 29, 2002 A recent Seventh Circuit decision sheds light on one common pitfall for employers to avoid in drafting arbitration agreements in the employment context. Report Link Requiring Workers to Arbitrate May Not Always Be Employers' Best Option.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - March 28, 2002 Given the outcome of recent court decisions, there is ample reason for employers to question whether arbitration is in fact a preferable forum. Report Link Circuit City's Arbitration Agreement Is Unenforceable.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - March 01, 2002 Discusses Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, No. 98-15992 (9th Cir. February 4, 2002), in which the Ninth Circuit (on remand from the Supreme Court) held that the arbitration agreement in question was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion. Report Link ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS FOUND "UNCONSCIONABLE".Kilpatrick Stockton LLP - February 02, 2002 Discusses Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, No. 98-15992 (9th Cir. February 4, 2002), in which the Ninth Circuit (on remand from the Supreme Court) held that the arbitration agreement in question was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion. Report Link Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Retains Its Role Despite Arbitration Agreement.Thelen Reid & Priest LLP - January 25, 2002 Discusses EEOC v. Waffle House Inc., No. No. 99—1823, ___ U.S. ___ (January 15, 2002), in which the court held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is not bound by an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee. Report Link Supreme Court Clarifies EEOC's Role in Litigating Employment Disputes Subject to Private Arbitration Agreement.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 21, 2002 Discusses EEOC v. Waffle House Inc., No. No. 99—1823, ___ U.S. ___ (January 15, 2002), in which the court held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is not bound by an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee. Report Link Viability Of Compulsory Arbitration Remains Uncertian In the Ninth Circuit [PDF File].O'Melveny & Myers LLP - October 01, 2001 The enforceability of provisions that require employees to arbitrate state and federal anti-discrimination claims remains in a state of great uncertainty in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Report Link arbitration of employment claims: here to stay.Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - June 01, 2001 Discusses arbitration of employment disputes in light of Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, No. 99—1379, __ U.S. __ (March 21, 2001), in which the court held the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1, permits employers to require employees to arbitrate work-related disputes. Report Link Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Employment Agreements [PDF File].Lowenstein Sandler PC - May 01, 2001 Three page PDF file discussing mandatory arbitration clauses in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Circuit City Stores v. Adams, No. 99—1379, __ U.S. __ (March 21, 2001). Report Link High Court's Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements Will Have a Significant Impact on the EPLI Community.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 01, 2001 Discusses the pros and cons of mandatory arbitration in wake of Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. ___ (2001).
Report Link United States Supreme Court Upholds The Enforceability Of Arbitration Agreements In Employment Contracts.Pillsbury Winthrop LLP - April 01, 2001 Discusses Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, No. 99—1379, __ U.S. __ (March 21, 2001), in which the court held the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1, permits employers to require employees to arbitrate work-related disputes. Report Link Supreme Court upholds private arbitration of employment disputes: employers can opt to keep employees out of court.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 01, 2001 Discusses Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. ___(2001), in which the court held the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1, permits employers to require employees to arbitrate work-related disputes; also discusses the effects of the court's decision and what employers should do now. Report Link Supreme Court Upholds Enforceability Of Predispute Employment Arbitration Agreements [PDF File]O'Melveny & Myers LLP - March 01, 2001 Discusses Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, No. 99—1379, __ U.S. __ (March 21, 2001), in which the court held the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1, permits employers to require employees to arbitrate work-related disputes; article also includes other issues affecting enforceability of arbitration agreements. Also lists issues left open by the Court's decision Report Link EEOC Policy Statement. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - July 01, 1997 EEOC Policy Statement on Mandatory Binding Arbitration of Employment Discrimination Disputes as a Condition of Employment
|
ArticlesFound: 39 ArticlesSUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
PREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT'S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)
Sacramento
March 12, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUNDERSTANDING YOUR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AT WORK (AB 1234 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
May 13, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPPreventing Wage/Hour Class Actions.Online
May 13, 2008 LittlerHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSacramento
May 13, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPHow to Stay Union FreeLas Vegas
2008-5-13 Jackson Lewis LLPConducting Effective Investigations of Employment Claims: Essential Skills for Internal InvestigatorsHouston
May 13, 2008 Littler2008 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Universal City
May 13, 2008 Ballard RosenbergSHRM Morris County Monthly Legal UpdateFlorham Park
2008-5-14 SHRM Morris County ChapterThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-5-14 Jackson Lewis LLPDigital Dangers: Recent E-Discovery Developments and TrendsLas Vegas
May 14, 2008 Littler |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds