Podcasts about Federal Arbitration Act

congress court supreme court faa sonia sotomayor dismissing federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 4, 2024 8:48

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Smith v Spizzirri. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act give district courts discretion to dismiss a lawsuit when all claims are subject to arbitration? The case was decided on May 16, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act compels the court to issue a stay, and the court lacks discretion to dismiss the suit. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) states that a court “shall” stay proceedings when an issue is subject to arbitration. The word “shall” creates a mandatory obligation that leaves no room for judicial discretion. The term “stay” means a temporary suspension of legal proceedings, not a conclusive termination. The statutory text surrounding “stay” in Section 3 indicates that parties can return to federal court if arbitration fails, which would not be possible if the case were dismissed. Even if district courts have inherent authority to dismiss proceedings subject to arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA overrides that discretion and requires a stay. The FAA's structure and purpose confirm that a stay is required. The FAA allows immediate appeals of orders denying arbitration but not orders compelling arbitration, reflecting Congress's intent to move parties to arbitration quickly. Dismissing a case would trigger an appeal that Congress sought to forbid. Finally, staying a suit aligns with the supervisory role the FAA envisions for courts, allowing them to assist in the arbitration process as needed. Keeping the case on the docket avoids the costs and complications of filing a new suit to invoke the FAA's procedural protections. Thus, Section 3 compels the district court to issue a stay and does not give the court discretion to dismiss the suit. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC

court supreme court llc adams bakery southwest airlines saxon john roberts lepage bissonnette park st federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 26, 2024 12:57

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Bissonnette v LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC. In this case, the court considered this issue: To be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, must a class of workers that is actively engaged in interstate transportation also be employed by a company in the transportation industry? The case was decided on April 12, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. In Circuit City v Adams, the Court held that Section 1's exemption covers “transportation workers” based on the characteristics shared by the specific categories of “seamen” and “railroad employees” mentioned in the statute. In the more recent Southwest Airlines v Saxon case, the Court rejected an “industrywide” approach, emphasizing that the focus is on the work the individual performs, not the industry of their employer. The Court reasoned that imposing a “transportation industry” requirement would lead to complex line-drawing problems about what counts as that industry. Moreover, the statutory text and precedent do not support limiting “seamen” and “railroad employees” to particular industries. While there is a legitimate concern that Section 1 might be read too broadly, transportation workers play a direct and necessary role in the interstate transport of goods, ensuring that the exemption remains appropriately narrow. Therefore, the appeals court erred in compelling arbitration solely because the workers were in the bakery industry. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

A Discussion of Industry and Consumer Perspectives on Mass Arbitration

Consumer Finance Monitor

Play Episode Listen Later May 16, 2024 62:58

Our special guest is Professor Richard Frankel of Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law and the author of a recent article on mass arbitration. In this episode, we first discuss what mass arbitration is, how it relates to class action lawsuits, and the role of public enforcement. We then discuss the industry and consumer positions on the use of mass arbitration and the empirical study conducted by Prof. Frankel for his article. We conclude with a discussion of steps that companies using arbitration provisions in their consumer agreements can take to respond to the use of mass arbitration, the application of the Federal Arbitration Act to arbitration agreements containing provisions that address mass arbitration, and the role of state regulation. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation, joined by Mark Levin, Senior Counsel in the Group.

law prof mass perspectives consumer arbitration senior counsel frankel mark levin ballard spahr federal arbitration act

NEW: Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries | Federal Arbitration Act, Transportation Workers

What SCOTUS Wrote Us

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 25, 2024 18:17

Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC., decided April 12, 2024. Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

supreme court llc workers transportation bakery lepage bissonnette federal arbitration act

Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22-1218 [Arg: 4.22.2024]

united states supreme court docket federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 25, 2024 43:17

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Smith v. Spizzirri

court federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 22, 2024 43:16

A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.

A Seat at the Sitting - April 2024

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 17, 2024 95:27

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Snyder v. United States (April 15) - Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (April 15) - Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff's malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.Fischer v. United States (April 16) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.Thornell v. Jones. (April 17) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court's precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court's factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state's rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief.City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (April 22) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.Smith v. Spizzirri (April 22) - Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.Department of State v. Munoz (April 23) - (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (April 23) - Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board's requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act using the traditional, stringent, four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or some other more lenient standard.Moyle v. United States (April 24) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho's Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.Trump v. United States (April 24) - Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.Featuring:Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for JusticeG. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy AssociationHarry Graver, Associate, Jones Day Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater InstituteProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover InstitutionModerator: Danielle Thumann, Partner, McGuireWoods

Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, No. 23-51 [Arg: 2.20.2024]

united states supreme court bakery docket lepage bissonnette park st federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 24, 2024 60:19

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether, to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, a class of workers that is actively engaged in interstate transportation must also be employed by a company in the transportation industry. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC

court bakery lepage bissonnette park st federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 20, 2024 60:18 Very Popular

A case in which the Court will decide whether, to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, a class of workers that is actively engaged in interstate transportation must also be employed by a company in the transportation industry.

U.S. Supreme Court Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, Case No. 23-51

Audio Arguendo

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 20, 2024

Arbitration: To be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, must a class of workers engaged in interstate transportation be employed by a company in the transportation industry? - Argued: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:38:56 EDT

bakery us supreme court edt lepage bissonnette case no federal arbitration act

A Seat at the Sitting - February 2024

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 20, 2024 77:10

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (February 20) - Does the six-year statute of limitations to challenge an action by a federal agency begin to run when the agency issues the rule or when the plaintiff is actually injured?Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street, LLC (February 20) - Labor & Employment; Whether the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for the employment contracts of “workers engaged in interstate commerce” applies to any worker who is “actively engaged” in the interstate transportation of goods, or whether the worker's employer must also be in the “transportation industry.”Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (February 21) - Intellectual Property; Whether copyright plaintiffs can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before they filed their lawsuit.Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (February 21) - Environmental Law; (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency's federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (February 26) - First Amendment; (1) Whether the laws' content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws' individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (February 26) - First Amendment; Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.McIntosh v. United States (February 27) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed.Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. (February 27) - Whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.Garland v. Cargill (February 28) - Second Amendment; Whether a “bump stock” – an attachment that transforms a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic, assault-style weapon – is a “machinegun,” which is generally prohibited under federal law.Coinbase v. Suski (February 28) - When an arbitration agreement tasks the arbitrator with deciding whether a dispute should be arbitrated, should courts or the arbitrator decide whether the agreement is narrowed by a later contract that does not address arbitration?Featuring: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawScott Dixler, Partner, Horvitz & Levy LLPStephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent InstituteAllison R. Hayward, Independent AnalystJohn Masslon, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationModerator: Alexandra Gaiser, General Counsel, Strive

The Federalist Society's Teleforum: Courthouse Steps Preview: Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 15, 2024

supreme court bakery courthouse federalist society lepage bissonnette park st federal arbitration act teleforum

Courthouse Steps Preview: Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC

defense surety federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 15, 2024 24:57

On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street LLC. The court will consider whether the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for the employment contracts of “workers engaged in interstate commerce” applies to any worker who is “actively engaged” in the interstate transportation of goods, or whether the worker's employer must also be in the “transportation industry.”Join us as Prof. Samuel Estreicher previews the case and the questions implicated by its potential outcomes.Featuring: Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law

law institute supreme court prof labor bakery courthouse nyu school lepage bissonnette park st federal arbitration act law director

The Federal Arbitration Act and a Potential Surety Defense

Surety Today

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2023 32:52

Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

supreme court argument coinbase bielski federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 20, 2023 22:09

On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. At issue is district court jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal (of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration) in arbitration cases under the Federal Arbitration Act.Join us to hear from Dr. Tamar Meshel as she breaks down the case and argument.

Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski

SCOTUS Audio

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 22, 2023 82:21

Under§ 16(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act, when a district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the party seeking arbitration may file an immediate interlocutory appeal. This Court has held that an appeal "divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). The question presented is: Does a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration oust a district court's jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal, as the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits have held, or does the district court retain discretion to proceed with litigation while the appeal is pending, as the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have held? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-105.html

seventh coinbase tenth eleventh circuits griggs bielski this court federal arbitration act

Arbitrator Factual Error Must Stand

Zalma on Insurance

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 12, 2023 6:13

In Martinique Properties, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, Subscribing to Policy Number W1551E160301; Beazley Lloyd's Syndicate 2623; Beazley Lloyd's Syndicate 623, No. 21-3561, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (March 1, 2023) the Eighth Circuit interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act as applied to an insurance appraisal. Read the full blog at https://zalma.com/blog FACTS Martinique Properties, LLC sued the Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Underwriters) seeking to vacate an arbitration award. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for vacatur. Martinique Properties appealed. Martinique Properties owned apartments in Omaha, Nebraska, for which it had property insurance coverage through Underwriters. In May 2016, while the policy was in effect, the apartments sustained hail and wind damage. Martinique Properties submitted an insurance claim for reimbursement of its repair costs and the Underwriters and Martinique disputed the amount owed for the repairs. The insurance policy included an appraisal provision, which governed the process for resolving disagreements as to the amount of loss or the value of the property. Under the provision, a panel of appraisers was to evaluate the property damage and determine the amount of loss. If the panel came to a decision, its agreed-upon appraisal award would be binding on the parties. Martinique Properties invoked the appraisal provision. A panel of appraisers agreed on a binding appraisal award in June 2020. The suit against Underwriters sought a declaration that the appraisal process and award were invalid. According to Martinique Properties, the award incorporated incorrect figures and measurements. The district court granted Underwriters' motion to dismiss, finding that none of Martinique Properties' allegations presented appropriate grounds for vacatur. ANALYSIS The Arbitration Act is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements. Under the Act a court may only vacate an arbitration award in four limited circumstances, and in the absence of one of these grounds, the award must be confirmed. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

stand llc act nebraska error omaha appeals syndicate subscribing martinique factual united states court underwriters arbitrators eighth circuit federal arbitration act

A Discussion of Recent Federal Arbitration Act Decisions

S&C Critical Insights

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 8, 2023 14:09

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Annie Ostrager and Diane McGimsey, Co-Heads of S&C's Labor & Employment Group, discuss two recent decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits involving preemption and Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. They analyze how those courts interpreted two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing the FAA's scope in the employment context: Viking River Cruises v. Moriana and Southwest Airlines v. Saxon. In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., the plaintiffs, who delivered baked goods to stores and restaurants, claimed they were transportation workers, which would exempt them from Section 1 of the FAA. The Second Circuit held that because the plaintiffs charged for the baked goods, the transportation was incidental and the plaintiffs were in the baked goods industry and therefore not excluded from the FAA. After the Supreme Court issued its Saxon ruling a month later, the Second Circuit panel reconsidered Bissonnette, but adhered to its original ruling, which affirmed the district court order compelling arbitration. In Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, a divided Ninth Circuit panel examined a California law, A.B. 51, that broadly prohibits employers from requiring mandatory arbitration agreements. Reversing a district court, the majority held that the A.B. 51's restrictions are valid but could not be enforced if an unlawful agreement was entered into. After the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Viking River Cruises, the Ninth Circuit panel reheard the case and came to the opposite conclusion, upholding the district court's injunction against A.B. 51. Annie and Diane said that in light of the Chamber of Commerce ruling, they expect California employers who had temporarily gotten rid of their arbitration agreements to be revising those policies. The Saxon and Bissonnette decisions left things less clear, but clients may wish to reexamine arbitration agreements to ensure employees' work is characterized properly.

Restructure This! Episode 14: The Intersection of Bankruptcy and Arbitration with Professor Robert M. Lawless

Sheppard Mullin's Restructure This!

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 21, 2022 42:19

Sheppard Mullin's Restructure THIS! podcast explores the latest trends and controversies in chapter 11 bankruptcy, commercial insolvency and distressed investing. In this week's episode, Professor Robert Lawless of the University of Illinois College of Law joins us to discuss the intersection of bankruptcy and arbitration, including the enforceability of arbitration agreements in bankruptcy and the frameworks bankruptcy courts should use to determine when such an agreement is enforceable. What We Discussed in This Episode What is the tension between the Federal Arbitration Act and the Bankruptcy Code? What framework should the courts use to determine when an arbitration agreement is enforceable in bankruptcy? Are there any actions that frequently arise in the bankruptcy context that should or should not be subject to arbitration? Is there value in arbitration in bankruptcy where there is no pre-dispute agreement in place? When should courts take that approach? About Professor Robert M. Lawless Professor Lawless is the Max L. Rowe Professor of Law and co-director of the Program on Law, Behavior and Social Science at the University of Illinois College of Law. He specializes in bankruptcy, consumer finance and business law. Professor Lawless also co-authored the ninth edition of Secured Transactions: A Systems Approach, a leading textbook on secured transactions, as well as Empirical Methods in Law, a textbook on empirical methodologies. He administers and contributes to the blog Credit Slips, participates in the Consumer Bankruptcy Project, and serves as an associate editor for the Law & Society Review. Professor Lawless has testified before Congress, and his work has been featured in major media outlets such as C-SPAN, CNN, CNBC, NPR, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, ABC News and the Financial Times. Contact Information Professor Robert M. Lawless Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every week. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

Supreme Court Business Review: Viking River Cruises v. Moriana and Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon

S&C Critical Insights

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 19, 2022

In the fourth episode of S&C's Supreme Court Business Review series, hosts Judd Littleton, Julia Malkina and Morgan Ratner are joined by partners Diane McGimsey and Annie Ostrager to discuss two employment arbitration cases from the past term and their implications for employers. In Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California Supreme Court ruling insofar as it prohibits bringing certain state law claims to arbitration and reaffirmed that no party can be made to arbitrate a claim without expressly agreeing to do so. In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the Court held that certain airline workers, baggage handlers and some of their supervisors, qualify for an exemption under Section 1 of the FAA for workers involved in interstate commerce or the transportation of goods or people.

court supreme court faa southwest airlines saxon s c california supreme court viking river cruises federal arbitration act

Episode 65: Why Corporate America Want a Conservative Supreme Court.

Civil Action with Brian & Shant

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 13, 2022 18:54

Today Brian and Shant discuss why businesses and corporate America tend to support conservative Supreme Court justices... spoiler alert: they don't care about social issues. While big businesses often take more progressive stances on hot-button social issues like abortion and gay rights, businesses nevertheless fund conservative agendas so they can ensure a legislature and judiciary who are going to take more “pro-business” stances on cases, whether they involve consumer protection, workers rights, or the enforcement of arbitration. Brian and Shant discuss some of the historical arc of pro-business decisions including the recent West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022 which limits the power the EPA has to regulate carbon emissions and the AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion in 2011 which expanded the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act to say that companies could in fact include class action waivers in their arbitration agreements with employees and consumers, even if it is against state law. Hear how a conservative court isn't always consistent on issues of State vs Federal law, often ruling in favor of reducing states rights when it comes to regulations on business but then shifting power back to the states when it comes to social issues or individual freedoms. Finally, hear their thoughts on why Democrats have had a difficult time with their political messaging and how they can turn things around in hopes of eventually shifting the court to be less packed with conservative leaning justices.

america state supreme court democrats federal conservatives west virginia epa corporate america environmental protection agency concepcion shant federal arbitration act america want

PAGA Claims After Viking River Cruises, with Eric Kingsley

The California Appellate Law Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 6, 2022 48:38 Transcription Available

What does the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana mean for PAGA claims against employers in California? Employment attorney Eric Kingsley explains how, under Viking River, **employees now may be forced to waive their PAGA claims on a representative basis and arbitrate them individually instead. The holding disapproves the California Supreme Court decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 as running afoul of the Federal Arbitration Act.Eric explains that the effect of Viking River may be short-lived. The California Supreme Court has already granted review in another case involving whether arbitration may be compelled in a PAGA representative action in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Eric explains how the Court may follow the lead offered in Justice Sotomayor's Viking River concurrence.Eric also shares his experiences litigating in the California Supreme Court, some other interesting employment cases, and the Dr. Sally Ride Memorial Highway.Eric Kingsley's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Tim Kowal's Weekly Legal Update, or view his blog of recent cases.Use this link to get a 25% lifetime discount on Casetext.Other items discussed in the episode:Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. MorianaIskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348.Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.Kim v. ReinsDr. Sally Ride Memorial Highway

california los angeles court supreme court llc employment claims paga sonia sotomayor adolph california supreme court uber technologies casetext viking river cruises federal arbitration act

Viking River Cruises Drops Anchor on PAGA

We Get Work

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 9, 2022 25:59

The United States Supreme Court held that California's Private Attorneys General Act rule is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act to the extent California precludes division of PAGA actions into individual arbitrable claims and non-individual, non-arbitrable claims. On this episode of We get work™, we discuss the ramifications for PAGA actions in California now that the Supreme Court's decision has overruled the California's Supreme Court decision.

california anchor supreme court drops paga united states supreme court viking river cruises federal arbitration act

Viking River Cruises PAGA Decision (Part 2): Class Action Waivers and the Federal Arbitration Act

Zaller Talk

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2022 7:34

In our next installment from our new podcast series, "Viking River Cruises PAGA Decision", Anthony Zaller defines the Federal Arbitraion Act, and provides context for PAGA claims by giving examples of California and U.S. Supreme Court Arbitration Cases.

california decision paga waivers class action viking river cruises federal arbitration act

Episode 64: PAGA - What just happened here?

Civil Action with Brian & Shant

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 14, 2022 24:46

With the California Private Attorneys General Act in the news again after the Supreme Court decision on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Brian and Shant dive into what the decision means for the future of PAGA and how it may be enforced now that the Federal Arbitration Act can preempt the California law in certain situations. They also discuss what might happen if enough signatures are collected to put PAGA on the chopping block in the 2024 election, including legislative compromises that would keep PAGA intact but attempt to reduce abuses, particularly those aimed at small businesses. Lastly, Brian and Shant discuss a ruling by the California Fourth District Court of Appeals in the case, Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., which held that PAGA cases could not be dismissed by the court because of manageability issues, which is in direct opposition to the Second District Court's ruling in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC in 2021. Since PAGA claims are meant to act in the stead of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, the court said that cases cannot be thrown out due to manageability concerns because, “the LWDA is not subject to a manageability requirement when it investigates Labor Code violations and assesses fines internally,” thus PAGA claims can not be subject to manageability requirements either. The case will now head to the California Supreme Court and Brian and Shant give their predictions on where the court will land.

california supreme court llc appeals estrada staples paga california supreme court shant viking river cruises federal arbitration act labor code

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act: Is this the beginning of the end of mandatory employment arbitrat

FedSoc Events

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 61:29

The “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act” amended the Federal Arbitration Act to bar mandatory employment arbitration agreements covering sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. This program will feature Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin and G. Roger King who testified before Congress as the legislation was being considered (see here and here respectively, for their written testimony). The panel will discuss the new statute, its intended purposes, and its impact more broadly on mandatory employment arbitration. The program will also cover why sexual harassment and assault claims, in particular, have been excluded from mandatory arbitration. Will this exclusion for such claims remain unique under the FAA or will it lead towards a ban on mandatory arbitration for employment claims generally? How does the Act connect to the more general issue of class, collective, and joint action waivers in predispute arbitration, and will the Act impact the mass filing strategy that plaintiff side firms are increasingly using?Featuring:Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell UniversityG. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy AssociationModerator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart

Viking River Cruises v. Moriana - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2022 13:59

On March 30th, the Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. vs. Moriana, a case which concerned whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act. With a decision likely to be rendered in the coming weeks and months, Theane Evangilis, partner in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn and Co-Chair of the firm's global Litigation Practice Group, joins the program to give analysis.

los angeles court argument dunn co chair viking river cruises federal arbitration act litigation practice group

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon

court southwest appeals faa southwest airlines pp saxon district court fair labor standards act federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 6, 2022 15:53

Respondent Latrice Saxon, a ramp supervisor for Southwest Airlines, trains and supervises teams of ramp agents who physically load and unload cargo on and off airplanes that travel across the country. Like many ramp supervisors, Saxon also frequently loads and unloads cargo alongside the ramp agents. Saxon came to believe that Southwest was failing to pay proper overtime wages to ramp supervisors, and she brought a putative class action against Southwest under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Because Saxon's employment contract required her to arbitrate wage disputes individually, Southwest sought to enforce its arbitration agreement and moved to dismiss. In response, Saxon claimed that ramp supervisors were a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” and therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act's coverage. 9 U. S. C. §1. The District Court disagreed, holding that only those involved in “actual transportation,” and not those who merely handle goods, fell within §1's exemption. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that “[t]he act of loading cargo onto a vehicle to be transported interstate is itself commerce, as that term was understood at the time of the [FAA's] enactment in 1925.” 993 F.3d 492, 494. Held: Saxon belongs to a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” to which §1's exemption applies. Pp. 3–11. Credit: Justia US Supreme Court, available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/21-309/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.

supreme court federal taco bell courts sundance faa eighth circuit federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later May 25, 2022 10:50

Morgan, an hourly employee at Sundance's Taco Bell franchise, had signed an agreement to arbitrate any employment dispute. Morgan later filed a nationwide collective action asserting that Sundance had violated federal law regarding overtime pay. Sundance initially defended as if no arbitration agreement existed, filing an unsuccessful motion to dismiss and engaging in unsuccessful mediation. Months after Morgan filed suit, Sundance unsuccessfully moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Under Eighth Circuit precedent, a party waived its right to arbitration if it knew of the right; “acted inconsistently with that right”; and “prejudiced the other party by its inconsistent actions.” The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The Eighth Circuit erred in conditioning a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice. A court must hold a party to its arbitration contract just as the court would to any other kind and may not devise novel rules to favor arbitration over litigation. Federal policy is to treat arbitration contracts like all others, not to foster arbitration. Courts may not create arbitration-specific procedural rules. Because the usual federal rule concerning waiver does not include a prejudice requirement, prejudice is not a condition of finding that a party waived its right to stay litigation or compel arbitration under the FAA. The proper inquiry would focus on Sundance's conduct. Did Sundance knowingly relinquish the right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that right? Primary Holding: Because the usual federal rule concerning waiver does not include a prejudice requirement, prejudice is not a condition of finding that a party waived its right to stay litigation or compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. *Credit: Justia US Supreme Court available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/21-328/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Badgerow v. Walters - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

court decision faa walters sections stephen breyer elena kagan vaden federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later May 18, 2022 13:02

On March 31, the Court decided Badgerow v. Walters, a case which concerned judicial supervision of arbitration. Joining today to discuss the decision and its implications is Jennifer Dickey, Associate Chief Counsel at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.Holding: Federal jurisdiction in a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act is determined by “looking through” the petition to the jurisdictional basis of the “underlying substantive controversy,” Vaden v. Discover Bank, but that approach does not apply to petitions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA.Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 31, 2022. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

Arbitration Award Enforcement

On Subrogation

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2022 36:12

One of the benefits of pursuing subrogation recovery through arbitration is the parties' agreement to pay the resulting awards expediently, thereby reducing cycle times. As ideal as this timeframe sounds, things do not always go as planned. In this episode Ana Zgela, our Associate head of the RG Arbitration Team, joins Rebecca again to talk about how to enforce an arbitration award when the opposing carrier doesn't pay. We discuss the requirements for enforcing awards from Arbitration Forums, NAMIC, as well as state arbitration forums like the Kentucky Insurance Arbitration Association (KIAA). To hear more of Ana's wealth of knowledge on arbitration and its processes, listen back on our previous episode, Arbitration Decision: The End... or is it?, from October 15, 2021, to learn more about the arbitration procedures and the steps to take in the event of an error.

litigation enforcement arbitration unpaid enforce subrogation federal arbitration act namic

Episode 4: Examining the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFASASHA)

The Arbitration Conversation

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2022 36:34

In this episode, Amy talks with George Friedman, the publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the Securities Arbitration Alert and the principal of George H. Friedman Consulting, LLC, about the new Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASASHA) that President Biden signed on March 3rd, 2022. They discuss the scope and limitations of the new legislation, as well as possible conflicts between it and the Federal Arbitration Act. Link: https://secarbalert.com/

joe biden llc ending examining forced sexual assault sexual harassment arbitration george friedman federal arbitration act

Episode 3: Waiver of a Right to Arbitrate?

The Arbitration Conversation

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2022 26:05

In this episode, arbitrator and busy attorney John Lewis discusses the recent U.S. Supreme Court case on waiver in arbitration: Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. More information on the case can be found at https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/morgan-v-sundance-inc/. The discussion includes consideration of waiver generally, and aspects of federalist vs. uniformity that arise in Federal Arbitration Act jurisprudence. Link: https://www.bakerlaw.com/JohnBLewis

supreme court sundance john lewis waiver federal arbitration act

Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 [Arg: 03.30.2022]

Law360's The Term - News & Analysis on the Supreme Court

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2022 80:55

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act.Date Proceedings and OrdersMay 10 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 14, 2021)May 25 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Viking River Cruises, Inc.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.Jun 14 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed.Jun 14 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of California New Car Dealers Association filed.Jun 14 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.Jun 14 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Restaurant Law Center filed.Jun 30 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.Jul 13 2021 | Response Requested. (Due August 12, 2021)Aug 04 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 12, 2021 to September 10, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Aug 05 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 10, 2021.Sep 10 2021 | Brief of respondent Angie Moriana in opposition filed.Sep 28 2021 | Reply of petitioner Viking River Cruises, Inc. filed.Nov 23 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.Dec 15 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Jan 04 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Viking River Cruises, Inc.Jan 13 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Angie MorianaJan 28 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, March 30, 2022.Jan 31 2022 | Brief of petitioner Viking River Cruises, Inc. filed.Jan 31 2022 | Joint appendix filed.Feb 01 2022 | Record requested from the U.S. Court of Appeal of California 2nd Appellate.Feb 04 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of California New Car Dealers Association filed.Feb 04 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation and Atlantic Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Employers Group filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Uber Technologies, Inc. and Postmates, LLC filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. and the National Retail Federation filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of California Employment Law Council filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Civil Justice Association of California filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Restaurant Law Center filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The California Business and Industrial Alliance filed. (Distributed)Feb 11 2022 | CIRCULATEDFeb 14 2022 | The record received from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles has been electronically filed.Mar 02 2022 | Brief of respondent Angie Moriana filed. (Distributed)Mar 08 2022 | Amicus brief of National Academy of Arbitrators not accepted for filing. (March 08, 2022 -- Corrected version to be submitted)Mar 08 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of National Academy of Arbitrators filed. (Distributed)Mar 08 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Steve Chow filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amici curiae of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Civil Procedure and Arbitration Law Professors filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amici curiae of California Employment Lawyers' Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of State of California filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Arbitration Scholar Imre Stephen Szalai filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Tracy Chen, in Her Representative Proxy Capacity on Behalf of the State of California filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed. (Distributed)Mar 18 2022 | Reply of petitioner Viking River Cruises, Inc. filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

S3, E24: Near 100, Federal Arbitration Act Timely As Ever

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2022 28:04

It was a banner week for the Federal Arbitration Act in the U.S. Supreme Court this week, as the justices examined the nearly 100-year-old law in multiple cases, including one with huge ramifications for the nation's most populous state of California. On this week's episode of The Term we're breaking down the ongoing battle between workers and employers over the FAA.

california supreme court faa timely federal arbitration act

Federal Arbitration Act now prohibits mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment and assault cases

Schmoyer Reinhard Employment Law Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2022 9:58

In this episode, Trey Cammack discusses a new law signed by President Biden titled “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.” Trey further gives advice to employers on updating policies related to this Act and discusses updated language to Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code that codifies the definition of sexual harassment. Future episode topics, including new EEOC guidance and upcoming episodes on cyber security, are also previewed.

future joe biden act assault sexual assault mandatory sexual harassment eeoc prohibits federal arbitration act

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, No. 21-309 [Arg: 03.28.2022]

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2022 66:39

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether workers who load or unload goods from vehicles that travel in interstate commerce, but do not physically transport such goods themselves, are interstate “transportation workers” exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.Date Proceedings and OrdersAug 27 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 30, 2021)Sep 08 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 30, 2021 to November 1, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Sep 09 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 1, 2021.Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.Sep 30 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Airlines for America filed.Nov 01 2021 | Brief of respondent Latrice Saxon in opposition filed.Nov 15 2021 | Reply of petitioner Southwest Airlines Co. filed. (Distributed)Nov 16 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.Dec 06 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.Dec 10 2021 | Petition GRANTED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.Jan 18 2022 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Southwest Airlines Co.Jan 24 2022 | Brief of petitioner Southwest Airlines Co. filed.Jan 26 2022 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit.Jan 26 2022 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.Jan 28 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, March 28, 2022.Jan 28 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.Jan 31 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; National Association of Manufacturers filed.Jan 31 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Lyft, Inc. filed.Jan 31 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Airlines for America filed.Jan 31 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Uber Technologies, Inc. filed.Jan 31 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Amazon.com, Inc. filed.Feb 11 2022 | CIRCULATEDFeb 22 2022 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.Feb 22 2022 | Motion for an extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits filed.Feb 22 2022 | Motion to extend the time to file respondent's brief on the merits is granted and the time is extended to and including February 24, 2022.Feb 24 2022 | Brief of respondent Latrice Saxon filed. (Distributed)Mar 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of National Employment Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)Mar 02 2022 | Amicus brief of Historians not accepted for filing. (March 02, 2022)Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Historians filed. (Distributed)Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of National Academy of Arbitrators and National Association of Railroad Referees filed (3/10/2020). (Distributed)Mar 03 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice filed. (Distributed)Mar 03 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed. (Distributed)Mar 03 2022 | Brief amici curiae of State of Illinois, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 17 2022 | Reply of petitioner Southwest Airlines Co. filed. (Distributed)Mar 28 2022 | Argued. For petitioner: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Jennifer D. Bennett, San Francisco, Cal.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

court viking river cruises federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 30, 2022 80:55 Very Popular

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act.

CD249: A Few Good Laws

Congressional Dish

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 20, 2022 108:45

We have some new laws! In this episode, a brief overview of the government funding law that (finally) funds the government for 2022 and provides money and weapons to Ukraine, a new law that protects drinking water, a new law that slightly reduces the corruption of Puerto Rico's financial oversight board, and a new law that guarantees you rights that corporate contracts have been taking away. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Executive Producer Recommended Congressional Dish Episode CD076: Weapons for the World Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD248: Understanding the Enemy CD244: Keeping Ukraine CD229: Target Belarus CD170: Electrifying Puerto Rico CD147: Controlling Puerto Rico CD128: Crisis in Puerto Rico Recommended Congressional Dish YouTube Videos What is the World Trade System? Revolution of Dignity or Regime Change? Ukraine 2014 Explained. Earmarks Jamie Dupree on Twitter Jamie Dupree. Mar 10, 2022. “Russian oil ban heads to Senate.” Regular Order by Jamie Dupree. Continuing Resolution Mary Ellen McIntire. Mar 9, 2022. “House Democrats' retreat upended by spending bill delays.” Roll Call. Ballotpedia. Updated February 11, 2021. “Election results, 2020: Incumbent win rates by state.” Red Hill Water Contamination Sophia McCullough. Mar 7, 2022. “Pentagon to permanently shut down leaking Red Hill fuel tank facility.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Scott Kim. Mar 4, 2022. “Tap water declared safe for 3 more Pearl Harbor neighborhood zones.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Sophia McCullough. Mar 1, 2022. “Confused about the timeline for the Red Hill fuel storage facility and contaminated water? Read this.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Associated Press, HPR News Staff. Nov 22, 2021. “Navy says 14K gallons of fuel and water leaked from a 'drain line' near the Red Hill facility.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Scott Kim and Catherine Cruz. Oct 27, 2021. “Navy says operator error was the cause of a May fuel leak from the Red Hill storage facility.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Lead Pipes Karen Pinchin. Sep 10, 2019. “The EPA Says Flint's Water is Safe — Scientists Aren't So Sure.” Frontline. Brittany Greeson. “Lead Pipes Are Widespread and Used in Every State.” Natural Resources Defense Council. Puerto Rico Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Feb 18, 2019. “Informative Motion Regarding Publication and Filing of Final Investigative Report – McKinsey & Company, Inc.” Case: 17-03283-LTS. Forced Arbitration Matt Stoller. Mar 7, 2022. “Monopolies Take a Fifth of Your Wages.” BIG. Laws H.R.2471 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 House Vote Senate Vote Law Outline DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Title VII: General Provisions Sec. 8139: $300 million from the "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" account must be used for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative The money can be used for "salaries and stipends" of Ukraine's military in addition to equipment and support Sec. 8140: Prohibitions against Russia will not be lifted until "the armed forces of the Russian Federation have withdrawn from Crimea, other than armed forces present on military bases" agreed upon by the Russian and Ukrainian governments. Sec. 8141: "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion. DIVISION K - DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS Title VII: General Provisions Sec. 7047: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for the implementation of any action or policy that recognizes the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea or other territory in Ukraine." This will end when the Secretary of State certifies that "the Government of Ukraine has reestablished sovereignty over Crimea and other territory in Ukraine under the control of Russian-backed separatists." DIVISION N: UKRAINE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT Title I: Department of Agriculture $100 million for Food for Peace grants Title III: Department of Defense $195.5 million for US military personnel $213 million for Air Force procurement $5.5 billion for operations and maintenance $3.5 billion of this is for replacing weapons given to Ukraine and for "defense services" and "military eduction and training" provided to the Government of Ukraine. Title VI: Department of State Authorizes $4 billion for direct loans to Ukraine and NATO countries, along with permission to reduce or cancel their obligations to pay us back. Amount provided this way "shall not be considered assistance for the purposes of provisions of law limiting assistance to a country" $2.65 billion to countries housing Ukrainians refugees for emergency food and shelter $1.4 billion for refugees $1.12 billion for Ukraine and "other countries" - Poland and Hungary in particular - that are enacting IMF economic reforms and expanding the private sector $650 million for the "foreign military financing program" for Ukraine "and countries impacted by the situation" $647 million for the "Economic Support Fund" which can be transferred to fund activities "related to public engagement, messaging, and countering disinformation." Expands the emergency powers of the President in 2022 to allow him to provide $3 billion in military equipment, services and money to foreign countries and international organizations, instead of the usual limit of $100 million per year Increases the amount of weapons that are allowed to be exported from $2.05 billion to $3.1 billion $120 million for "Transition Initiatives" H.R.6617 - Further Additional Extending Government Funding Act Law Outline DIVISION A - FURTHERING ADDITIONAL CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022 Sec. 101: Extends government funding at 2021 levels until March 11, 2022. Allows the Department of Defense to spend their Operations and Maintenance and emergency funds to respond to the Red Hill Bulk Storage Facility spill but caps the spending at $53 million. Adds $250 million to their budget for 2022 to address drinking water contamination caused by the spill. Adds $100 to their budget so they can comply with the Hawaii state order to remove the fuel from the Red Hill facility. H.R.1192 - Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2021 House vote: 429-0 Senate: Unanimous Consent Law Outline Sec 2: Disclosure by Professional Persons Seeking Approval of Compensation Under Section 316 or 317 of PROMESA Requires attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, and other professional persons to file a disclosure listing their conflicts of interest with debtors, creditors - or their attorneys and accountants - and the oversight board members, directors, and employees. Failure to file the disclosure, or an incomplete disclosure, will prevent that person from being paid. Being "not a disinterested person" or having an "adverse interest" will also disqualify that person from compensation. This will only apply to cases filed AFTER enactment of this law (January 20, 2022) H.R.4445 - Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 Committee Report House Debate Law Outline Sec. 2: Predispute Arbitration of Disputes Involving Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment. Invalidates predispute arbitration clauses in contracts if the person alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault or a representative of a class action lawsuit elects to go to court instead of use arbitration. This will apply whether the case is to be filed in Federal, Tribal, or State court. The decision over where the case will be heard will be made by a court, not by an arbitrator regardless of what is in the contract. Sec 3: Applicability Will only apply to any dispute or claim that "arises or accrues" on or after the date of enactment. Hearings and Debate House Debate on H.R. 1192: Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2021 February 23, 2022 Highlighted PDF of debate on the house floor Clips 1:19:09 Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon: Representative Velazquez and myself have proposed this bipartisan initiative in the last two congresses having achieved passage in the house during the last session Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX): In response to dire fiscal issues facing Puerto Rico at the time, Congress passed the Puerto Rico oversight management and economic stability Act, or Preska in 2016. That legislation established the financial oversight and management board with control over Puerto Rico's budget laws, financial plans and regulations and the authority to retain professionals to assist the board in executing its responsibilities. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): The Puerto Rico recovery accuracy in disclosures act of 2021 or product eliminates a double standard currently facing Puerto Rico. On the US Code and federal bankruptcy procedure. Any conflicts of interest or even the perception of such conflict between those working on the bankruptcy and the debtor there are required to be disclosed. However, a loophole in the current law prevents this requirement from being extended to the people of Puerto Rico. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Most significantly the gap in the 2016 law created a potential for undisclosed compensation terms and undiscovered conflicts of interest visa vi parties and interest for professional serving in Puerto Rico's bankruptcy. Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González Colon: Learning that someone was involved in businesses of one of the parties in the case only after they are named and working on the case does not create assurance of their commitment to the best interest of Puerto Rico or even managing the depth. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): This builds disclosure and oversight requirements increase the likelihood that conflicts of interest will be caught and timely addressed before compensation decisions are made. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): While we can have different opinions on how effectively the oversight board is carrying out its mission, one thing should be clear. The island's residents should be entitled to the same rights and protections of any debtor on the mainland. House Debate on H.R.4445 - Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 February 7, 2022 Highlighted PDF of debate on the house floor Clips 9:21 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): If H.R. 4445 becomes law contracts will be far less likely to include the option to arbitrate. 10:28 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): Why are some in Congress so intent on taking this legislation forward today? For years, Democrats have tried to gut arbitration agreements for all kinds of different claims and plaintiffs. If Democrats had their way, everyone from consumers to civil rights plaintiffs, to those with antitrust claims, to individuals using financial service products and others would not be able to contract in advance to resolve disputes through arbitration. 47:33 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): We know that if parties can't agree in advance to arbitrate then they are unlikely to agree to arbitrate after there has been a dispute. As a result, the plaintiff may never get to arbitration. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility: The Current Crisis, the Response, and the Way Forward House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Readiness January 11, 2022 This hearing conducted oversight into the Navy's maintenance of the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, the Navy's investigation into and response to the November 2021 release of fuel from Red Hill facility impacting drinking water, its impacts on service members and civilians, clean-up and remediation efforts, and next steps forward. Witnesses: Vice Admiral Yancy Lindsey, Commander, Navy Installations Command Rear Admiral Blake Converse, Deputy Command, U.S. Pacific Fleet Rear Admiral John K. Korka, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Chief of Civil Engineers Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos, Supply Corps, United States Navy, Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command and 49th Chief of Supply Corps Captain Michael McGinnis Pacific Fleet Surgeon, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Clips 9:05 Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA): Why does Red Hill exist in the first place? Even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States had grown concerned about the vulnerability of above ground fuel storage tanks in 1940. The construction began on the Red Hill bulk fuel storage facility, a one in a kind engineering innovation that secured the fuel from enemy aerial attack. The facility holds 250 million gallons of fuel in 20 steel lined underground tanks encased in concrete. These tanks are connected to three gravity fed pipelines, running two and a half miles to Pearl Harbor fuel appears. However, a statistic less commonly quoted by the DoD is that the facility is also 100 feet above the groundwater aquifer that provides water to the residents of Oahu. Thus, it has always been the responsibility of the military to ensure that these tanks are maintained in a manner that not only protects the wartime fuel supply, but the people have a Oahu water supply 18:45 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: I want to start by saying that the Navy caused this problem, we own it, and we're gonna fix it. 19:45 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: Beginning on November 28, residents of certain neighborhoods on our Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam here in Hawaii in military housing began recording vapors, discoloration and contamination of the water provided by the Navy. The Red Hill shaft well, which sits near the Navy's Red Hill bulk fuel storage facility was immediately suspected to be the source of this contamination as that was the source of the drinking water for those affected neighborhoods. So it was shut down that evening, November 28. And it just remained isolated since that day. Later, samples from the Red Hill shaft well would confirm the presence of petroleum contamination. 39:40 Captain Michael McGinnis: Medical teams have screened over 5900 patients during this event. The vast majority were conducted within the first two weeks of our response. patient's symptoms were consistent with an acute environmental exposure event. patient's symptoms consistent with the following nausea, vomiting, headache, diarrhea, skin or eye irritation. Once patients were removed from the water source, the symptoms rapidly resolved. 42:12 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: Our best information is that this recent spill was due to operator error. 1:31:45 Rep. Kaiali'i Kahele (D-HI): Tanks number three, number four and number 11 have not been inspected for approximately 40 years. So my question to Navy Supply Systems Command is why are these tanks still in operation? And how can you assure this committee and the people of Hawaii that tanks three, four and 11, that have not even been looked at in the last 40 years, are safe to use and meet current API 653 guidelines for bulk fuel storage underground facilities. Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos: Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Yes, you are correct. There are tanks, as you mentioned, that have been out of periodicity for quite a long time. 1:41:27 Rep. Jackie Speier: Are the commanding officers and our executive officers that are assigned to Red Hill trained in petroleum management? Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos: I'll take that question ma'am. The answer is no. Impact of Continuing Resolutions on the Department of Defense and Services House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense January 12, 2022 Witnesses: General David H. Berger, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps General Charles Q. Brown, Jr., Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force Admiral Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations of the U.S. Navy General Joseph M. Martin, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Mike McCord, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) General John W. Raymond, Chief of Space Operations of the U.S. Space Force Clips 29:51 Mike McCord: First, as I believe you're all aware a full year CR, we reduce our funding level below what we requested and what we believe we need. On the surface at the department level as a whole, the reduction to our accounts would appear to be about a billion dollars below our request, which would be significant. Even if that was the only impact. The actual reduction in practice will be much greater. Because we would have significant funding that's misaligned, trapped or frozen in the wrong places and unusable because we don't have the tools or flexibilities to realign funds on anything like the scam we would need to fix all the problems that the chiefs are going to describe. 30:27 Mike McCord: I know all of you are very familiar with the fact that virtually all military construction projects in each year's budget including the FY 22 budget are new starts that cannot be executed under a CR. 34:00 Mike McCord: The six longest CRs in the history of the Defense Department have all occurred in this last 12 year period. We have turned a 12 month fiscal year into an eight month fiscal year in terms of our ability to initiate new starts and enter contracts. This should be unacceptable and not the new normal. It's hard to see this full impact because or in the inefficiency from looking from outside because the organization has of course adapted to its circumstances just as organisms do. Nobody plans to enter into contracts in the first quarter of a fiscal year now because the odds that we would actually be able to do so are so low. Therefore we in turn, have no significant contract delays to report to you when we're under a CR. 1:44:02 Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI): This is about decreasing domestic spending and increasing defense spending. 1:44:20 **Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN):**This was my effort to quash those who are talking about year long CRs. No one on the Appropriations Committee is, yet you see things in the news. And unfortunately, sir, it's usually from your side of the aisle, and I'll pull it again. And it's a December 1 quote, and I can get you the gentlemen, the person who said it. Republicans should be in favor of a CR until Biden is out of office, so they're not going to talk about a one year CR. That would be the proper Republican thing to do. And anybody saying otherwise is deeply foolish. I know you and I, sir, do not agree with that sentiment. And my my goal here is to educate other members who don't understand the appropriations process as well as you and I, and many other of our colleagues that we serve alongside with. Silenced: How Forced Arbitration Keeps Victims of Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment in the Shadows House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law January 16, 2019 Witnesses: Eliza Dushku, Actor/Producer & Graduate Student Myriam Gilles, Professor of Law, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Lora Henry, Canton, OH Andowah Newton, New York, NY Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Tatiana Spottiswoode, Law Student, Columbia Law School Anna St. John, President and General Counsel, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute Clips 30:59 Anna St. John: Instead, it's worth considering that taking away the possibility of arbitration for these victims is a top-down, heavy handed approach that denies them the advantages of arbitration as a means of adjudicating their claims. 41:04 Sarah Parshall Perry: Since the 1980s, the progressive leadership of this and the upper chamber has sought to curtail the protections of the Federal Arbitration Act through bills including the Arbitration Fairness Act, Arbitration Fairness for Students Act, Consumer Mobile Fairness Act, Fairness and Nursing Homes Act, Sonsumer Fairness Act, Restoring Statutory Rights and Interests of the States Act, the Forced Arbitration Justice Repeal Act and many, many more. 47:13 Sarah Parshall Perry: arbitration agreements are not mandatory. No one, and the Supreme Court has held, is forced to sign a contract. But curtailing access to arbitration would injure, in the end, the very people that Congress has sought for nearly a century to protect. 54:50 Myriam Gilles: First, the entire regime is shrouded in secrecy. And not just because victims want to keep these issues confidential, which by the way is up to them, right? They should have the autonomy and the choice to decide. But because companies want to keep this stuff under wraps, they want to hide and shield sexual predators, and they don't want their business in the public eye. They don't want to deal with regulators or even with lawsuits. The secrecy here on its own just makes this a terrible way to deal with sexual harassment because it means that victims of sexual violence in the workplace who bravely tried to come forward are prohibited from telling their stories in a public forum. Instead, they're forced into this private process where everything is under wraps and siloed. Right, so this is the second bad thing. Victims can join together, even when their injuries stem from the same wrongdoing, even when they've occurred at the hands of the same perpetrator. Even when the company's tolerance for sexual harassment is structural and pervasive. Victims have to go it alone, never knowing about one another. They have to go into arbitration single file. I don't know where all these statistics are coming from about how great arbitration is how people win it all the time, because the truth is, no one goes into arbitration because it's siloed because it's secret because they don't know about what else is going on in the workplace. The secrecy that blankets these individualized proceedings prevents one victim from ever learning whether others right in the cubicle next to them might have experienced the same, the same tragedies, the same traumas and when vid when survivors are in the dark about cases filed by others in the workplace that makes coming forward that makes being the first person to come forward that much harder. As a corollary, and this is an important corollary, the relief that is available to the individual claimant doesn't prevent the wrongdoer from preying on other women doesn't prevent the predator from having all sorts of misconduct against other women in the workplace. The proceedings are one on one and the relief that arbitrators are allowed by contract to grant is individualized. They can't ever order any changes beyond what can help this one individual that happens to have the courage to come before them. I mean, can you imagine a worse system for dealing with toxic corporate culture because I can't. Third, and I think this is really important and all the survivors who've spoken about this forced arbitration is a system where the employers write the rules, and they pick the arbitral provider. Which means that victims of sexual harassment are shunted into a regime that stacked against them from the get go. First, because the arbitrators economic interest is to be very good to the repeat player employer so that they can be chosen for another arbitration next time. So the repeat player problem has been well documented, and I think it's alive and well in arbitration. And the secrecy protects that. And second, because the employer designs the entire arbitration process, it does so to serve its interests, not the interests of its workers, but its interests which again, are to keep discrimination and harassment under a veil of secrecy and out of the public eye. So given all of these things, given how bad this system is for victims of sexual harassment, it's no wonder that so few ever decide to go into private arbitration. I wouldn't. I think it sounds terrible. 1:04:00 Myriam Gilles: When an arbitration complaint is filed, it's filed in secret. In other words, the only entities that know that the arbitration has even been filed are the the employer, the employer, the complaining employee and the arbitration entity. The AAA or JAMS are one of these arbitration providers. Nobody else knows. Contrast that with court. I go down to the DC District Court today and I file a complaint, that complaint is on the public record. Right. And so as the defendants answer or motion to dismiss all the pleadings, their public litigation in the public court system, it has power, and the power it has is the power of signaling, not only to the defendant that I've sued, but to all similarly situated defendants that this is a wrong. This person has complained about something she's told her story, and she plans to prove it. None of that happens in arbitration from the beginning. It is private throughout the entire proceeding, which is held in a secret location, no public no press. All of it is private. Arbitrators don't write decisions. There are only three states in the union that currently require minimal disclosure of arbitrations pretty redacted and hard to read. If you're a researcher like I am about these issues. Other than that, everything that happens in arbitration is a black box. 1:32:18 Tatiana Spottiswoode: And the forced arbitration is so unfair. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): I understand you you think forced arbitration is unfair, that's great. Most of the people on that side want to eliminate it for everything not just situations like this. Other representative: will the gentleman yield for a question? Rep. Darrell Issa: I will not. 1:49:15 Myriam Gilles: The FAA was enacted in 1925. But it was enacted so that sophisticated business people could negotiate for arbitration provisions and those provisions would be respected by courts. It was never intended to be imposed via standard form contract. And in fact, if you read the legislative history, if you read the legislation, it accepts and exempts employees. So the idea that the FAA applies to employees is something that was created by a conservative majority of the Supreme Court in 1991, in a case called Circuit City, sorry, first actually was Gilmer and then Circuit City, I can't keep all the bad cases straight. And those are the cases in which the Court interpreted, I would say misinterpreted, the FAA to apply to employees like this. So that now employers can just stick these clauses into job applications, orientation materials, even an innocuous email from HR can include a forced arbitration clause. That was not what the 1925 Congress intended they they'd be rolled, they should be rolling in their in their grades. This is not what they intended. This is what a Supreme Court intent on protecting corporations intended beginning in the 1990s. 2:39:26 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): You know what's happened to so many women and others in the workplace is terrible but I really am concerned that by involving the government in these contracts between adults in the area of sexual harassment and assault we're opening a door for more government involvement in other areas of contracts. 2:42:09 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): And I would argue that you have you sign it it is not you know even though we use the it's forced arbitration as people are saying it's not really you you have signed something that you have agreed to it. Justice Denied: Forced Arbitration and the Erosion of Our Legal System House Committee on the Judiciary November 16, 2021 Witnesses: Gretchen Carlson, Journalist and Advocate Myriam Gilles, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Phil Goldberg, Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown L.L.P. Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ziober, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy Reserves Clips 26:35 Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): You'll hear a different view from me. Eliminating arbitration achieves one thing, it enriches trial attorneys. 29:11 Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): The AAJ, or American Association for Justice, is the nice sounding name of the plaintiffs attorneys lobbying organization. It also happens to be a huge donor to Democratic candidates, contributing millions of dollars each cycle to their campaigns. 29:52 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): Mr. Chairman, point of order. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) What is your point of order? Rep. Jamie Raskin: My question is just can we impute the policy positions that members of the committee take to campaign contributions? Because if so, I think I'd be doing it a lot more frequently. I thought that's something that we don't do. Rep. David Cicilline: It's an excellent point of order, I'm sure Mr. Sensenbrenner didn't intend to communicate that in that way. Rep. Jamie Raskin: We're gonna be hearing a lot more of that in our committee if that's permissible, but I'm just curious. Maybe we can have some research done. Rep. James Sensenbrenner: Will the gentleman yield? Rep. David Cicilline: I think we don't need to engage with you. I this is an important issue with strongly held beliefs on both sides. [crosstalk] 36:00 Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): We used to have a concept in law. When I went to law school they still taught it called contracts of adhesion where a contract was unenforceable if one party had no choice in entering into it. All of these arbitration clauses almost are contracts of adhesion. You try when you want to get a credit card, try crossing out the fine print if you can find it without the magnifying glass that that says that you will settle all all disputes in arbitration, cross it out, see if you get the credit card. See if you get the bank loans if you get the mortgage. You have no see if you get the car loan, you have no choice. 1:42:00 Gretchen Carlson: arbitration means that you have no way of knowing that anyone else is facing the same thing within the confines of the workplace structure. There's no way to know because the whole process is secret. And as I described during my testimony, if you do muster up the courage to go and complain, and you have an arbitration clause, that's a good day for the company, because no one will ever know anything about your story. The worst ramification of all of this is that the perpetrator gets to stay in the job. And I think one of the reasons that we've seen this cultural revolution that we're experiencing right now is because the American public was actually so angry about hearing about these stories, and they were wondering, why didn't we know about this? And the reason they didn't know about it, is because of forced arbitration. 2:00:30 Deepak Gupta: I've gone back and looked at the history of the act from 1925. People weren't blind to the possibility of abuse. They raised these concerns before this, this committee, in fact, and the and the architects of the legislation were clear, this is about letting businesses have equal bargaining power that want to resolve their disputes out of court, letting them do that, and I have no objection to that. That makes perfect sense. But but the the drafters were clear this is not about foisting this on people who don't consent through, take it or leave it contracts. And in fact, Congress put in a provision section one of the Federal Arbitration Act that says this shall not apply to any class of workers. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has read that language to mean precisely the opposite. And now it can apply to any class of workers. And so so we have just we've strayed so far away from what Congress intended in 1925. And that's why only this body Congress can set things right. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

united states american new york president peace house water law state professor russia food joe biden ukraine elections government failure partner russian revolution chief hawaii impact north congress defense legal court supreme court republicans laws journalists navy democrats operations act senate puerto rico poland federal air force democratic sec secretary ukrainian operation agriculture nato tap managing partners confused donations victims pentagon hungary maintenance commander dignity aaa api frontline sexual assault clips eliminating disclosure american association increases associated press adds contrast tribal pearl harbor fairness amount sexual harassment interests canton faa imf general counsel dod expands hearings hawai shook jams filing crimea antitrust united states navy oahu extends erosion sexual violence house democrats judiciary district court under secretary defense department roll call fy russian federation crs subcommittee commandant law students hwy public radio incumbent regime change public law natural resources defense council appropriations founding principal red hill lts circuit city gretchen carlson lieutenant commander arbitrators every state gilmer 14k management board prohibitions vice chief naval operations ballotpedia consolidated appropriations act appropriations committee congressional dish space operations judicial studies crestview music alley anna st edwin meese iii center sarah parshall perry us code federal arbitration act deepak gupta states act sensenbrenner preska jamie dupree cover art design david ippolito naval supply systems command

A Seat at the Sitting - March 2022

law partner court wall street journal investors sitting fund seat chamber sundance llp dean emeritus alixpartners hague convention federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 18, 2022 90:10

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. Issues presented in the next sitting include arbitration and the Federal Arbitration Act, international law, states rights, civil procedure, and more.Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (March 21) – arbitration and contract lawBerger v. North Carolina State Conference of NAACP (March 21) – states rights, intervention, and civil procedureGolan v. Saada (March 22) – international law; the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child AbductionZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. consolidated for argument with Alixpartners, LLP v. Fund for Protection of Investors' Rights (March 23) – rules of evidence before international arbitral tribunals; what constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a)Ledure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (March 28) – The Locomotive Inspection ActSouthwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (March 28) – the definition of “transportation workers” under the Federal Arbitration ActTorres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety (March 29) – state sovereign immunity, the constitutional war power, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (March 30) – enforcement of bilateral agreements under the Federal Arbitration ActFeaturing: -- Theane Evangelis, Partner, Gibson Dunn-- Jonathan Urick, Association Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center-- John Elwood, Partner, Arnold PorterEvan Caminker, Dean Emeritus and Branch Rickey Collegiate Professor of Law at Michigan Law -- Moderator: Jess Bravin, Supreme Court Correspondent, The Wall Street Journal

Ride Sharing Down the Path Paved by Court Reform

Legal Judg(e)ments

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 15, 2022 54:27

In discussing Cunningham v. Lyft, Bob and New England Legal Foundation's Ben Robbins address recent judicial interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act, how they impact the business and legal world and whether countermeasures employed by the plaintiffs' bar will make big business think twice about arbitration in the future.

court reform lyft cunningham paved ridesharing ben robbins federal arbitration act

March 4, 2022 the Ericsson Edition

Daily Compliance News

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2022 7:17

In today's edition of Daily Compliance News: · Ex-Nissan exec given suspended sentence in Japan. (NYT) · CA companies perverting Federal Arbitration Act. (Reuters) · Is crypto complying with sanctions. (WaPo) · DOJ accuses Ericsson of violating DPA. (The Guardian) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

japan nyt reuters ericsson wapo dpa federal arbitration act

A Deep Dive into Mass Arbitration: Part I, with Special Guest Maria Glover, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center

Consumer Finance Monitor

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 17, 2022 42:50

Prof. Glover is the author of the first major academic study of mass arbitration, which is soon to be published as a law review article. In Part I of this two-part podcast, after reviewing the historical background of the Federal Arbitration Act, key SCOTUS arbitration decisions, and the evolution of mass arbitration, Prof. Glover discusses the findings of her case study, the legal viability of mass arbitration, investments being made by the plaintiffs' bar in the use of mass arbitration, and the how arbitration administrators are responding to mass arbitration. Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel Alan Kaplinsky hosts the conversation.

professor prof deep dive mass scotus glover arbitration georgetown university law center federal arbitration act

Badgerow v. Walters

court walters sections federal arbitration act

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 2, 2021 51:45

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.

What You Need to Know about AB-51 Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

CalNeva Law Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2021 38:43

Brett Sutton and Jared Hague talk about the recent developments that have happened regarding the AB-51 mandatory arbitration agreement law. Brett first dives in by giving a simple overview of what an arbitration agreement is, how it works, and some of its pros and cons. After, Jared steps in to explain the upcoming legal changes happening within the law and what employers need to know going forward. Highlights: What do employers need to know about mandatory arbitration agreements? The laws can change on any of this information provided today. Before taking action, seek legal counsel for your unique situation. A quick overview of workplace arbitration agreements. All things being equal, employers want to be in front of a trained arbitrator vs. a jury. A huge benefit for California employers is that they can include a class-action waiver in their arbitration agreements. If you're in an industry that's not popular with the public, like chemicals or oil, then it's even more important to favor an arbitration agreement. What are some of the disadvantages of an arbitration agreement? There's been pushback by certain advocacy groups saying that an arbitration agreement is not fair. Jared steps in and explains what have been some of the latest developments happening in this space. Let's take a quick look at why the Federal Arbitration Act was created in the first place. What's the biggest takeaway that you need to know about AB-51? You can't incentivize your employee in any way nor fire him/her if they don't want to sign an arbitration agreement. What happens to you if you violate AB-51? When should you ask someone to sign an arbitration agreement? What are some of the best ways to protect yourself from a potential lawsuit? Brett and Jared weigh in with their thoughts. Resources: Suttonhague.com Calnevalaw.com

california ab mandatory agreements arbitration brett sutton federal arbitration act

President Biden's Federal Vaccine Mandate; The Federal Arbitration Act and the 9th Circuit's Decision to Uphold CA's AB51

Administrative Static Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2021 25:00

President Biden's Federal Vaccine Mandate Last week, President Biden issued an executive order mandating COVID-19 vaccines for federal employees. NCLA is opposed to the government implementing a vaccine mandate, which will force federal employees and contractors into choosing between their health and personal autonomy and suffering serious detriment to their professional careers. NCLA has filed several lawsuits against public universities (George Mason University and Michigan State University) over their vaccine mandates for employees who have naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19. Contrary to the views of Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb and a recent Israeli study that concluded naturally acquired immunity is superior to vaccine immunity, the federal government refuses to recognize naturally acquired immunity in its vaccine mandate. NCLA argues that it is fundamentally improper for policymakers to ignore the evidence that naturally acquired immunity, in Dr. Gottlieb's words, “confers a durable protection.” The federal government should not be permitted to infringe on its employees' rights to bodily autonomy and to reject medical treatments by making their continued employment conditional on taking a medically unnecessary vaccine. The Federal Arbitration Act and the 9th Circuit's Decision to Uphold CA's AB51 AB51 is a California law that bans mandatory arbitration and imposed criminal penalties on employers for mandating arbitration. The law was set to take effect in 2019. AB51 was stopped by a temporary restraining order and then an injunction in January 2020 in the US District Court. It was argued that AB51 conflicted with the Federal Arbitration Act and was therefore unconstitutional. This week, the 9th Circuit ruled that AB51 is only partially unconstitutional as to the criminal penalties. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

covid-19 california israel joe biden vaccines decision israelis michigan state university contrary circuit george mason university vaccine mandate gottlieb uphold scott gottlieb us district court federal arbitration act ncla former food

Labor & Employment Law Update - Week of 9/13/21

The Practical Employment Law Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2021 11:23

In this new podcast episode, recent cases and news from the world of Labor & Employment Law will be discussed, including:New OSHA Vaccine Mandate Rule – On September 9, the President announced that he is directing OSHA to issue an emergency rule requiring employers with more than 100 employees to require employees to be vaccinated or tested for COVID weekly. At this point, no rule has been issued and there are more questions than answers but several observations are worth considering.Arbitration in California – In U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court's decision that a state law (A.B. 15), which prohibits employers from requiring employees to waive certain rights as a condition of employment, was in conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act. This is significant because it means that employers in California cannot require employees to consent to arbitration as a condition of employment. Work From Home Arrangements – The EEOC has filed a federal lawsuit in Georgia over an employer's denial of an accommodation request by an employee to work from home two days per week. Work from home arrangements tend to be favored by the EEOC as accommodations and employers need to approach the issue with great care. Listen to the new episode of The Practical Employment Law Podcast for insights on these issues and more. Comments or questions: Contact Mark Chumley at mchumley@kmklaw.com or visit www.kmklaw.comMusic :Jamming with Leon by texasradiofish (c) copyright 2020 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/texasradiofish/61983 Ft: Scomber

covid-19 california president work labor commerce chamber osha arbitration employment law eeoc ninth circuit bonta federal arbitration act

Ep.89 – Asaf Raz on Arbitration and Corporate Law

Business Scholarship Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 2, 2021 24:43

Asaf Raz, a research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, joins the Business Scholarship Podcast to discuss his article Mandatory Arbitration and the Boundaries of Corporate Law. In this article, Raz considers whether case developments point toward mandatory arbitration clauses being incorporated into corporate charters and bylaws, which he predicts would have a negative impact on corporate governance. He further examines whether a contractarian view of the corporation—which, under the Federal Arbitration Act, could justify such provisions—should hold or whether corporate law should be viewed as a distinct body of law. This episode is hosted by Andrew Jennings, a teaching fellow and lecturer in law at Stanford Law School.

university boundaries raz arbitration stanford law school asaf corporate law andrew jennings federal arbitration act business scholarship podcast

149: A Prelude to Preemption?

Weekly Appellate Report

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 10, 2020 51:55

California's new law prohibiting mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts is on hold for now due to a Chamber of Commerce suit in the Eastern District. Our guests Cliff Palefsky (McGuinn, Hillsman and Palefsky) and Ryan Derry (Paul Hastings) discuss whether federal courts will find the law preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

california commerce chamber eastern district preemption federal arbitration act

Hot Topic – Legislative Update 2020

Workplace Perspective

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 18, 2019 24:33

Today's Hot Topic focuses on some of the new legislative changes set to take effect in California on January 1, 2020. Teresa McQueen talks about the new laws impacting mandatory arbitration agreements, the codification of the Dynamex ABC test, and what policies you'll need to have in your organization's employee handbook as of January 1st “Enacted to quote, “codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application,” AB 5 does nothing more than muddy the waters and once again add confusion to what was – for the better part of a year – a very straightforward analysis.” – Teresa McQueen Highlights From This Week's Workplace Perspective: ABC test remains in effect, but if a court rules that the 3-part ABC test cannot be applied, then the issue of whether individual is an employee or independent contractor is to be determined by applying the Borello factors Keep in mind that the ABC test is an ‘all or nothing' test – all 3 factors must be met for the individual to be classified as an IC – while Borello requires a weighing of the facts against many various factors The existing Department of Fair Employment & Housing deadline for filing claims of harassment, discrimination or retaliation is extended from 1 year to 3 years (from date of last act of harassment, discrimination or retaliation – unless an exception applies) AB 51 prohibits employers – not subject to Federal Arbitration Act – from requiring applicants/employees to agree, as a condition of employment, to mandatory arbitration of employment related claims (under the CA Labor Code or the Fair Employment & Housing Act) Deadline for complying with SB 1343 is extended by SB 788 to January 1, 2021 (with some exceptions)

california abc ab housing sb ic hot topic legislative update enacted fair employment federal arbitration act dynamex

Hot Topic – Legislative Update 2020

Workplace Perspective

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 17, 2019 24:33

Today's Hot Topic focuses on some of the new legislative changes set to take effect in California on January 1, 2020. SAFFIRE LEGAL PC’s founder and principal attorney Teresa McQueen talks about the new laws impacting mandatory arbitration agreements, the codification of the Dynamex ABC test, and what policies you’ll need to have in your organization's employee handbook as of January 1st. Workplace Perspective is a regular podcast series for employers and employees focusing on education, training, and the law to help organizations of all sizes develop and maintain successful employer / employee relationships. "Enacted to quote, “codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application,” AB 5 does nothing more than muddy the waters and once again add confusion to what was - for the better part of a year - a very straightforward analysis." - Teresa McQueen Highlights From This Week's Workplace Perspective: ABC test remains in effect, but if a court rules that the 3-part ABC test cannot be applied, then the issue of whether individual is an employee or independent contractor is to be determined by applying the Borello factors Keep in mind that the ABC test is an ‘all or nothing’ test – all 3 factors must be met for the individual to be classified as an IC – while Borello requires a weighing of the facts against many various factors The existing Department of Fair Employment & Housing deadline for filing claims of harassment, discrimination or retaliation is extended from 1 year to 3 years (from date of last act of harassment, discrimination or retaliation – unless an exception applies) AB 51 prohibits employers – not subject to Federal Arbitration Act – from requiring applicants/employees to agree, as a condition of employment, to mandatory arbitration of employment related claims (under the CA Labor Code or the Fair Employment & Housing Act) Deadline for complying with SB 1343 is extended by SB 788 to January 1, 2021 (with some exceptions) Special Thanks To... Paul Roberts (Engineer/Associate Producer Extraordinaire!) Michele Hardy de Boisblanc (Associate Producer Extraordinaire!) Stephen Vercelloni (Composer Extraordinaire! Today’s episode features the song Grifter) James Bohannan & The Knave At Knight (DJs & “Radio Angels” Extraordinaire!) Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show (using the links above or below) to receive new episodes on your podcast player the second and fourth Wednesday of every month. Raise The Bar At Workplaces Everywhere! by getting the word out about this podcast. Rate and review this show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, Blubrry and Tunein and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email This podcast is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs. © 2020 SAFFIRE LEGAL, PC. Workplace Perspective Raising the Bar at Workplaces Everywhere!® and copyrights are proprietary. All Rights Reserved.

SCOTUS & Arbitration: Last Term's Decisions and What's Next?

S&C Critical Insights

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 9, 2019 30:19

In this episode of the S&C Critical Insights podcast series, S&C's litigation partners, Joseph Neuhaus and Andrew Finn discuss the impact of recent Supreme Court arbitration decisions and preview the one arbitration case on the Court's docket for the 2019 Term. SCOTUS decided three arbitration cases in the 2018 Term, helping clarify some intricacies of the Federal Arbitration Act. For more information, visit us at Sullcrom.com

court supreme court decisions scotus arbitration s c federal arbitration act andrew finn

Henry Schein, Inc v. Archer and White Sales Inc. AND Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2019 16:54

On January 8, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc., a case involving the “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator. Archer and White Sales is a dental distributor that entered into a business agreement with Pelton and Crane, a dental equipment manufacturer. Henry Schein, Inc. is the successor-in-interest to Pelton and Crane. The business relationship grew tense, and White Sales sued Henry Schein, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust law, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The contract provided for arbitration of any dispute, except for certain actions seeking injunctive relief. Schein asked the court to refer the matter to arbitration, but Archer and White contended that the matter was not arbitrable because it sought injunctive relief. Schein argued that an arbitrator should decide that question. The district court sided with Archer and White, finding the basis for Schein’s arbitration request to be “wholly groundless.” Schein appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, unanimously vacating the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanding the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court rejected the “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce arbitration contracts according to their terms. Such an exception, the Court held, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and the Court’s own precedent. On April 24, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, a case considering whether an ambiguous agreement, in this case an employment contract, can provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration. In 2016, a hacking scheme revealed the tax information of about 1,300 employees of Lamps Plus, Inc. Frank Varela, one of the employees affected by this hack, brought a class action suit in federal district court against the company. Lamps Plus responded by seeking to compel individual arbitration, relying on the terms of Varela’s employment contract. The district court rejected Lamps Plus’ request, instead authorizing arbitration on a classwide basis and dismissing Varela’s claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment, determining that the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp--that a court may not compel classwide arbitration when an agreement is silent on the availability of such arbitration--did not control here because Varela’s employment agreement was ambiguous rather than silent regarding arbitration. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and by a vote of 5-4 reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration. The Chief Justice’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Both Justices Breyer and Sotomayor filed dissenting opinions. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which joined Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Part II.

Henry Schein, Inc v. Archer and White Sales Inc. AND Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Announcements

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2019 16:54

17-988 - Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela - Opinion Announcement - April 24, 2019

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 24, 2019

A case in which the Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.

court opinion varela federal arbitration act lamps plus

Trucker Wages -Understanding FMCSA 14 Hour rule and DOL 16 hour Wage Law

Ask The Trucker "LIVE" w/Allen Smith

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 9, 2019 119:00

Saturday 2-9-19 6PM ET 347-826-9170 Tonight’s show will open up by discussing a few of the most recent court decisions which have made a profound impact on the side of drivers. From the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled to exempt ALL transportation workers from the Federal Arbitration Act, to the most recent ruling from a district court judge in Arkansas, reaffirming that truck drivers need to be paid for every hour they spend in their trucks while they’re not sleeping, This ruling was based on Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division- Title 29 Section 785 Code of Regulations.. When it comes to drivers wages, there’s a misunderstanding between the FMCSA’s HOS rules and the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division’s laws. FMCSA rules were created for safety, not for determining wages. The 14 hour rule determines how many hours you may drive and work, The 16 hour rule determines how truckers are to be paid. It is because truckers are paid by the mile,regulated by a clock, and enforced by an ELD, that this misperception has taken hold. At a time when driver wage reform is at the forefront of many concerns, the courts have established a baseline of minimum wage and how drivers are to be paid using laws which have already been on the books but have been commonly overlooked.

code supreme court labor arkansas regulations wage truckers trucking hos hour rule department of labor fair labor standards act fmcsa hour division federal arbitration act

17-340 - New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira - Opinion Announcement - January 15, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Announcements

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 15, 2019

A case in which the Court held that (1) a court, not an arbitrator, must determine the applicability of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, and (2) under that provision, the term “contracts of employment” includes independent contractor agreements.

court opinion oliveira new prime federal arbitration act prime inc

17-1272 - Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. - Opinion Announcement - January 08, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Announcements

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 8, 2019

A case in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not permit a court to resolve a question of arbitrability when the parties to the contract at issue delegated such questions to an arbitrator.

sales court opinion henry schein federal arbitration act

Employee/Independent Contractor- Misclassification & the Federal Arbitration Act

Ask The Trucker "LIVE" w/Allen Smith

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 29, 2018 120:00

With us tonight is professional driver Dominic Oliveira and attorney Jennifer Bennett. We will be discussing a case, Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc, that has been heard by the US Supreme Court and is waiting decision. Depending on the outcome, this case could set an industry precedent for employers and owner operators It is common for many trucking companies to classify employees as Independent Contractors. These Independent Contractors pay for all expenses for the truck and many times end up owing the company money at the end of the week. They are under the control of the company and dispatch, thus really employees. In March 2015, Dominic filed a lawsuit against Prime on behalf of himself and thousands of current and former Prime drivers who have been misclassified as independent contractors. New Prime attempted to force Dominic into arbitration with the company, basing their argument on the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which requires those who signed an arbitration clause in their contract to enter arbitration rather than go to court. Exemptions of arbitration in the FAA ".. excluding contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" This brings up 2 issues with the lawsuit Was Dominic misclassified as Independent Contractor? If he was an Independent Contractor, would he be exempt form forced arbitration anyway? October 3, 2018, U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument -New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340. Read transcripts and listen to oral arguments HERE

supreme court employees prime depending oliveira us supreme court faa trucking independent contractors exemptions new prime misclassification federal arbitration act jennifer bennett

Forced Arbitration: Is this the End of Class Action?

Veritas News Network - Truth is Trending

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 3, 2018 4:28

For decades, Americans who have been wronged by corporations and large companies could bring a class-action lawsuit, pooling their resources to alleviate the cost of suing. The class-action lawsuit made it possible for the “little guys” to take on big conglomerates. But more and more corporations are adding arbitration clauses into terms of service agreements, essentially forcing a consumer to waive the right to sue in court or bring a class-action. The arbitration clauses essentially force each individual to appear before an arbitrator or arbitration panel with a price tag that can sometimes far outweigh the cost of court. For years, the practice of forced arbitration was prohibited by law in many states. But in 2011 the Supreme Court ruled in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that all state laws prohibiting forced arbitration clauses are preempted by the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act. That led a host of corporations to add the clauses to terms of service and other contractual agreements. For the consumer with a small claim, the cost of arbitration may far exceed the amount of the tort. Not only must the consumer pay one-half the cost of the arbitration, but may incur travel expenses if bringing an action against an out of state company. A class-action would allow a group of consumers with small claims to band together and file one large claim, hence, a more cost-effective and feasible avenue. What are the chances of a consumer winning an arbitration? A 2007 study, conducted by Public Citizen concluded that 95 percent of arbitration cases brought by consumers are settled in favor of companies. According to the study, a sample of 19,300 cases showed that arbitrators ruled in favor of consumers five percent of the time. Meanwhile, companies such as MasterCard, Visa, Discover Financial Services and American Express Co. won 95 percent of the disputes, the study noted. Critics of arbitration point out that arbitration providers want to get repeat business from companies, so they have a financial incentive to rule more often in favor of a business and that arbitration clauses do nothing more than shield them from costly lawsuits. Proponents claim the consumer has as equal a chance of prevailing before an arbitration panel as they would in court. They also claim it’s more cost effective for the consumer to engage in arbitration rather than a costly lawsuit. In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, American Express argued that arbitration is a more cost effective method for lower income plaintiffs to pursue their claims and that it prevents abusive lawsuits against corporations. As VNN previously reported, a California resident lost an arbitration and was ordered to pay the prevailing party nearly $90,000 in legal fees. The amount does not include the cost of the actual arbitration. Arbitration is provided under the Federal Arbitration Act enacted February 12, 1925 as a method of resolving disputes. In the ruling of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual waiver of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff’s cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds potential recovery. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. It was not unanimous.

california americans court supreme court visa forced critics american express mastercard arbitration class action proponents antonin scalia concepcion public citizen discover financial services federal arbitration act american express co at t mobility

Sneak Peek: Class Actions, Criminal Appeals, & Cougars

Cases and Controversies

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2018 13:41

Class actions, criminal appeals, and cougars dominate the first week of arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming "November sitting." In the inaugural episode of Cases and Controversies SCOTUS Sneak Peek, Bloomberg Law's legal reporters break down what to expect in the six cases set for argument the week of Oct. 29. Perry Cooper, Kimberly Robinson, and Jordan Rubin preview the action in the latest cases involving the Federal Arbitration Act, sovereign immunity, and more. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch

class supreme court sneak peek cougars bloomberg law criminal appeals jordan rubin federal arbitration act kimberly robinson

Nurse Talk Mini Cast During The Thom Hartmann Program

Nurse Talk

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 5, 2018 3:00

Here are highlights of National Nurses United Director of Organizing David Johnson talking about a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Federal Arbitration Act. Bad for labor...good for corporations! All part of a strategic assault on Labor in the U.S.

supreme court labor nurses minicast thom hartmann federal arbitration act

Courthouse Steps: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis Decided

Play Episode Listen Later May 25, 2018 37:30

On May 21, the Supreme Court decided Epic Systems v. Lewis; a consolidated case with Ernst & Young, LLP, et al. v. Morris, et al. and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al. affirming the enforceability of Class Action Waivers contained within arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) against employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). These two federal statutes had been on a collision course for some time: the FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms that specify with whom parties choose to arbitrate their disputes; the NLRA protects non-supervisory employees’ rights to engage in certain concerted activities. Christopher Murray of Ogletree, Deakins joins us to discuss this important 5-4 decision. Featuring:Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

young supreme court morris ernst decided faa llp shareholder courthouse nlrb federalist society ogletree smoak deakins national labor relations act epic systems christopher murray nlra federal arbitration act teleforum epic systems corp labor & employment law

Courthouse Steps: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis Decided

Play Episode Listen Later May 25, 2018 37:30

Courthouse Steps: National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 3, 2017 33:40

Employers across the country are anxiously awaiting a ruling from the United States Supreme Court regarding the enforceability of express waivers of an employee’s right to bring or participate in a class or collective action. In three cases set for oral argument on October 2nd – Epic Systems v. Lewis; Ernst & Young, LLP, et al. v. Morris, et al.; and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al. – the Supreme Court will decide whether Class Action Waivers contained within arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) are enforceable against employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). These two federal statutes have been on a collision course for some time: the FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms that specify with whom parties choose to arbitrate their disputes, and the NLRA protects non-supervisory employees’ rights to engage in certain concerted activities.The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has taken the position that class action waivers, even when contained within FAA-governed arbitration agreements, are unenforceable because they violate employees’ rights to engage in protected, concerted activity under the NLRA. Two of the lower court decisions, the Seventh Circuit’s Lewis v. Epic Systems, 823 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), and the Ninth Circuit’s Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), have adopted the NLRB’s position. In the third case, Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), the Fifth Circuit rejected the NLRB’s position and held that arbitration agreements, including class action waivers, must be enforced according to their terms under the FAA, notwithstanding the NLRB’s interpretation of the NLRA.On October 2nd, Edward Berbarie of Littler Mendelson attended the Supreme Court Oral Argument and provided his commentary and insights, including the issues that were focused upon, the questions that were asked and how they were addressed by the parties, and his predictions as to how the Court will rule. Featuring:Edward F. Berbarie, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Courthouse Steps: National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

Supreme Court Audio Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 3, 2017 33:40

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2017)

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 2, 2017

Argued on 10/2/2017. Description from Oyez.org: "A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Labor Relations Act prohibits enforcement of an agreement requiring employees to resolve disputes with the employer through individual arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act."

court argued oyez national labor relations act federal arbitration act epic systems corp

OA44: All About Arbitration

Opening Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 16, 2017 63:25

In today's episode, we take a look at arbitration, an increasingly popular device being used to take disputes out of the courtroom. What might arbitration mean for you? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a question from patron Faye Reppas, who asks about HR 2802, the so-called "First Amendment Defense Act." Next, in our main segment, we take a look at the implications of arbitration -- particularly in the employment context, where your employer may have inserted a mandatory arbitration clause in your employment agreement. What does arbitration do? Can you be compelled to do it? We break it all down for you. After our main segment, we tackle another listener question; this one from Eric Walls about corporate personhood. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #11 regarding the testimony of a plaintiff who's had surgical sponges accidentally left inside of her (a surprisingly common occurrence). Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links This is the text of the proposed HR 2802, the First Amendment Defense Act. Andrew wrote two articles on arbitration for his firm blog: you can read Part 1 and Part 2 for more in-depth analysis. Here's a link to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Here is a link to Andrew's appearance on the David Pakman show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

arbitration bar exam david pakman federal arbitration act first amendment defense act openargs

DIRECTV v. Imburgia - Post-Argument SCOTUScast