|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link HIGH COURT GREEN LIGHTS ARBITRATION OF JOB BIAS CLAIMS UNDER UNION CONTRACTS.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - April 08, 2009 On April 1, 2009, the United States Supreme Court handed a rare victory to unionized employers seeking to compel arbitration of job bias claims under existing labor agreements. In the case of 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, the High Court enforced a clause in a collective bargaining agreement which explicitly required union members covered by the agreement to arbitrate any claims they may have under the federal age bias laws. This ruling is a major departure from the way the court has looked at this issue for the past thirty-five years. Report Link Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Of Discrimination Claims.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - April 02, 2009 On April 1, 2009, the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements, which require employees to arbitrate claims under federal anti-discrimination law. While it marks a sharp departure from the established law in much of the country, for employers, it is welcome news. Report Link Supreme Court Holds Arbitration Provision in CBA May Bar Employee Federal Age Claims in Court.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 02, 2009 In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has held enforceable a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that “clearly and unmistakably” compels union members to arbitrate Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims.” Report Link Supreme Court Issues Employer-Friendly Ruling In ADEA Arbitration Case.Ogletree Deakins - April 01, 2009 This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is enforceable. Because the arbitration clause was freely negotiated and “clearly and unmistakably” requires arbitration of age discrimination issues, the Court stated, it had “no legal basis” to strike down the provision. Report Link Supreme Court to Decide Enforceability of Union Agreement to Waive Employees' Court Access.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 26, 2008 The United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a collective bargaining agreement's arbitration provision waiving employees' rights to file a lawsuit for a statutory employment discrimination claim is enforceable. 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, No. 07-581 (cert. granted, Feb. 19, 2008). The decision under review comes from the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. This case likely will be decided during the Court's next term, which begins in the fall. Report Link When Are Disputes Over Side Agreements Arbitrable?Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - February 14, 2007 Formal collective bargaining agreements ("CBA") almost universally include mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures. In contrast, many other agreements between employers and unions, such as side letters and memoranda of understanding, are silent with respect to dispute resolution procedures. This typical omission can lead to differing results depending on where the dispute arises. Report Link Employer's Decision to Fire Employee after Reinstatement Upheld (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - January 26, 2007 Court finds second termination for "independent grounds" was permitted. Report Link NLRB Strikes Down Mandatory Arbitration Policy.Vedder Price - December 08, 2006 In our April 2006 edition (Vol. 26, No. 2), we
cautioned employers that agreements to arbitrate
employment disputes may be invalid if they make
arbitration prohibitively expensive for an employee.
Now, employers have another reason to be concerned
about the enforceability of such agreements. A
divided National Labor Relations Board has ruled that
mandatory employment arbitration policies applicable
to nonunion employees must expressly exclude unfair
labor practice charges which may be fi led with the Board
under the National Labor Relations Act. U-Haul Co.
of California, 347 NLRB No. 34 (2006). The Board’s
decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, which has scheduled oral
arguments this month.
|
ArticlesFound: 8 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