arbitration

Subscribe to arbitration via RSS

Horton Hears an Employer Victory

Last December, the Fifth Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, holding that employers may require employees to sign arbitration agreements categorically waiving the right to pursue employment claims in a collective or class action. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit’s rejected the NLRB’s opinion that such agreements violate employees’ right under Section 7 of…

In a post last week, we noted a recent trend of federal courts strongly enforcing employment arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). That trend continues in Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, Case No. 11-17530 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013), which holds that a defendant’s pretrial participation in litigation does not, absent prejudice to the plaintiff, necessarily waive the defendant’s right to…

Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, 2013 WL 139200 (Cal. App. Jan. 11, 2013)

Israel Flores and Andrea Naasz sued West Covina Toyota (WCT) and Toyota Motor Sales for selling them a “lemon,” alleging both individual and class action claims, including claims for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).  WCT filed a motion to compel arbitration and enforce the class action waiver contained…

Breaking with the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling that arbitration agreements containing class waivers can violate federal labor law, the California Court of Appeal recently held that an arbitration agreement precluding class arbitration was not unconscionable, nor would enforcing it violate California state law, federal law or public policy.

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009)

Plaintiffs, members of the Service Employees International Union (the “SEIU”), filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and, after receiving their right-to-sue letters, filed suit against their employer alleging age discrimination. In response, the employer filed a motion to compel arbitration…

Proskauer Prevails As The Court Holds That Collectively Bargained Agreements for The Arbitration of Statutory Discrimination Claims are Enforceable

On April 1, 2009, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Proskauer Rose’s client 14 Penn Plaza LLC, holding that a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law. The Court’s decision validates the right of an employer and a union to negotiate about the way disputes can be resolved, even when those disputes involve individual statutory rights. Accordingly, 14 Penn Plaza LLC. v. Pyett, is significant to all employers who have collective bargaining relationships.

Proskauer negotiated the CBA at issue on behalf of the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc., (“RAB”) and handled this litigation on behalf of 14 Penn Plaza — from the district court through argument of the matter before the Supreme Court by Paul Salvatore, co-chair of Proskauer’s Labor and Employment Law Department.