Arbitration Of Claims

In the U.S. Congress’ latest proposal to strike against arbitration, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Labor Committee Chairman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott introduced the Restoring Justice for Workers Act.  The proposed legislation seeks to put an end to pre-dispute arbitration clauses in the employment context.  Significantly, a similar

California law is not typically seen as amiable to compelling employees to arbitrate their claims. However, in Franklin v. Community Regional Medical Center, ___ F.3d___(9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit panel upheld a motion to compel arbitration by a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement based on California law.

Isabelle

Employers concerned about the risks and expenses associated with employment litigation have increasingly required their employees to agree to arbitration in the event of a dispute.  Even upon the issuance of the arbitrator’s final decision, however, a court’s intervention may still be necessary.  At the very least, the court

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Dispute Resolution Services has announced it will reopen the majority of its 69 hearing locations across the United States and Puerto Rico for in-person arbitration and mediation proceedings beginning July 5, 2021.

On March 30, 2021, in Bossé v. New York Life Insurance Co. et al., the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision upholding the enforceability of an arbitration agreement that delegates the arbitrability of claims to an arbitrator, and not a court.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) is an independent regulatory body, overseeing securities firms and their brokers and other registered personnel.

Consistent with the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue, an hourly fuel tech and driver is entitled to arbitrate collective claims alleging that his employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled.  Sun Coast Resources Inc. v. Roy Conrad, No.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a case of first impression, has developed a required framework for a district court to evaluate when a plaintiff asks the Court to authorize notice to putative class members who have entered into arbitration agreements with their employer.

Although the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) places arbitration agreements on the same footing as any other contract and generally precludes state laws banning mandatory arbitration, employers must ensure that their arbitration agreement are enforceable contracts – an issue governed by state law.

In Taylor v. Dolgencorp, LLC, an employer sought

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the “Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act” (FAIR Act), which aims to nullify mandatory, predispute arbitration agreements and class-action waivers for employment, consumer protection, antitrust, and civil rights matters.

A properly implemented employment arbitration program can provide a variety of benefits to employers and employees alike. Many employers have robust arbitration programs that require both the employer and its employees to arbitrate any covered claim either may have against the other. These arbitration programs also very often contain a class and collective action waiver, whereby employees who are part of the program agree not only to waive a jury trial in favor of arbitration but also to waive their right to proceed collectively in a class or collective action lawsuit against their employer. The United States Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions in recent years that leave no doubt as to the enforceability of employment arbitration agreements that contain class and collection action waivers. The result has been to provide employers with an important tool to stem the ever-increasing tide of class and collective employment-related litigation.

An agreement to arbitrate sexual harassment claims is enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), federal Judge Denise Cote has ruled, rejecting arguments that New York law voids such an agreement. Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al., No. 1:18-cv-11528 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2019).

Class action arbitration is such a departure from ordinary, bilateral arbitration of individual disputes that courts may compel class action arbitration only where the parties expressly declare their intention to be bound by such actions in their arbitration agreement, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (Apr. 24, 2019). “Courts may not infer from an ambiguous agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide basis,” held the Court.

In the last two weeks, the nation’s high court issued two opinions concerning an important issue relating to enforceability of arbitration agreements, namely, who decides the “gateway” issue of whether or not a particular dispute is arbitrable—a court or an arbitrator?

In New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) Section 1 exemption applies to transportation workers, regardless of whether they are classified as independent contractors or employees. No. 17-340 (Jan. 15, 2019).