|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
|
ArticlesFound: 22 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis LLP |
|
| ||
|
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