Last Wednesday, the US Supreme Court issued yet another pro-employer arbitration decision.
In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela that a party cannot be compelled to submit to a class arbitration (as opposed to the arbitration of individual claims) unless the arbitration agreement explicitly authorizes class proceedings in arbitration.
In doing so, the Supreme Court reiterated two key aspects of its Federal Arbitration Act jurisprudence:
- Arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion; and
- Class arbitration is fundamentally different than the traditional individualized arbitration envisioned by the FAA.
Because, according to the majority opinion, class arbitration so fundamentally changes the nature of arbitration, a party can only be forced to litigate class claims in arbitration under the FAA if there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed.
Continue Reading US Supreme Court Turns Off The Lights On Coerced Class Arbitration
With IPOs blooming in Silicon Valley this spring, it’s hard to imagine the possibility of an economic downturn in the near future.
Although federal and state laws have prohibited employment-related sexual harassment and sex discrimination for decades, the #MeToo movement inspired several states and local jurisdictions to pass laws targeting sexual harassment in the workplace more directly. The new laws address issues such as mandatory anti-harassment training, workplace policies, confidentiality in settlement agreements, and the arbitrability of sexual harassment claims. However, the specific requirements vary across jurisdictions.
On March 28, 2019, the US Department of Labor announced a
Today is
With thanks to our colleague
Our Employment & Compensation practice is pleased to bring you the 2019 version of The Global Employer: Focus on US Business Immigration.