|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Set To Begin New Term Justices To Review Arbitration And Disparate Impact Bias Cases.Ogletree Deakins - November 03, 2009 In early October, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in the 2009-2010 term. There are currently seven cases on the docket that involve employment and labor related issues or are likely to impact these areas. One of the most notable of these will decide how much time plaintiffs have to file a lawsuit when they believe they have been unfairly penalized by hiring tests. Other cases will resolve issues involv-ing an alleged whistleblower, pension benefits, race discrimination, and labor arbitration. Report Link Hotel's "Refusal" to Arbitrate Does Not Breach Arbitration Agreement.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - September 04, 2008 Employers with currently valid arbitration agreements should keep in mind that nothing lasts forever. Just as the world is constantly changing, so too are court decisions relating to implementation and enforcement of arbitration agreements always evolving. The case at issue involves the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers ten states in the western United States. But circuits read each others' cases and the principles established by one are frequently applied elsewhere. This case points up the need to always be aware of any binding arbitration agreements and their details when dealing with employee issues. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
|
ArticlesFound: 15 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
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