FAA

Subscribe to FAA

Just days ago, the highest court in Massachusetts—the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”)— decided whether former food delivery drivers for GrubHub could escape their arbitration agreements and bring a wage and hour class action lawsuit in court. In excellent news for employers operating in the intrastate delivery sector, the SJC held that they could not. Archer v. GrubHub, Inc., SJC-13228. 2022 WL 2964639 (July 27, 2022) (“GrubHub II”). …
Continue Reading Massachusetts High Court Decides Intrastate Delivery Drivers Unable to Ditch Their Arbitration Agreements

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon unanimously held that a ramp supervisor who frequently handled cargo for an interstate airline company was exempt from coverage under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because she belonged to a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1.
Continue Reading Airline Cargo Loaders Are Exempt Under the Federal Arbitration Act, Supreme Court Holds

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take a closer look at the enforceability of arbitration agreements that bar representative claims brought under PAGA, a California law that allows individual employees to police labor code violations.
Continue Reading SCOTUS Could Deliver Good News to California Employers Looking to Enforce Class Action Waivers Against PAGA Claims

Yesterday a federal court in Texas partially enjoined enforcement of what is known as the “blacklisting” rule. The injunction comes one day before reporting was to begin under the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, 13673.
The “blacklisting” order would have required prime contractors, as part of federal contract bidding that occurs after October 25, 2016, to report to the federal government all violations of fourteen labor and employment laws during the preceding year, via a public website. The government would have the option to reject a contract bidder based on the violations disclosed. The order also would have imposed restrictions on pre-dispute arbitration agreements for civil rights and sexual assault claims, effective today.
Continue Reading Last Minute Injunction Stops “Blacklisting” Order

In Bodine v. Cook’s Pest Control Inc., No. 15-13233, 2016 WL 4056031 (11th Cir. July 29, 2016), the Eleventh Circuit held that a forced-arbitration agreement in an employment contract is enforceable, despite the fact that certain provisions of the arbitration agreement violated the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”).
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Despite Terms that Violate USERRA

The Ninth Circuit ruled on Monday, September 28, that California Private Attorney General Act claims cannot be waived in employment arbitration agreements, following the rule announced by the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit holds PAGA Waiver Provisions are Unenforceable

For many employers and employees, arbitration is a quicker and less costly means of resolving employment-related disputes. As a result, it has become standard practice for many employers to require as a condition of employment that employees agree to arbitrate employment-related claims. Mandatory arbitration clauses are routinely found in employment agreements or given to employees as separate employment policies at the time of hire or during their employment.
…
Continue Reading California Legislators Move Forward on a Bill Prohibiting Binding Arbitration as a Condition of Employment

On June 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court announced a landmark ruling that arbitration agreements with mandatory class waivers are generally enforceable while carving out one notable exception.  That exception consists of representative claims brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which is unique to California.…

Continue Reading California Supreme Court Ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation: Class Waivers Revisited

EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS

Vance v. Ball State University: Narrow Definition of Supervisor in Harassment Suits
In Vance, the Supreme Court announced a narrow standard for determining which employees constitute “supervisors” for purposes of establishing vicarious liability under Title VII. In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that a supervisor is a person authorized to take “tangible…