Arbitration Agreements

One of my least favorite phrases in blogging is “repurposing content.” The verb “repurposing” hurts my ears. You can give something a purpose, but you’re not “purposing” it. And if “purposing” isn’t a verb, how did “repurposing” become one?

While I hate the term, I love the concept. We’ve posted to this blog over 550

California’s legislature has passed two new statutes that increase the protections for employees arbitrating workplace disputes.

SB 1007, which passed on September 1, 2016, gives any party to arbitration proceedings “the right to have a certified shorthand reporter transcribe any deposition, proceeding, or hearing as the official record.” I routinely advise employers to have

My colleague Brian Berkley in Philadelphia wrote a piece in today’s Law360 titled “Can Opt-Out Provisions Save Arbitration Clauses?” He focuses on recent litigation involving Uber and its efforts to enforce arbitration agreements (which include class action waivers) against employees seeking to litigate wage and hour claims in court. Brian explains that Uber

A recently completed five-day arbitration with twenty-one witnesses, reminded me of the upsides of employment arbitrations (especially when I compare my situation to that of my colleagues who are preparing for jury trials in similar cases).

While we have written a lot here about the enforceability of class action waivers in such agreements, there are

Governor Brown vetoed AB 465This bill would have disregarded federal law and banned mandatory agreements to arbitrate employment claims. In a veto message, he noted the lack of proof that arbitration was unfair to employees and the likelihood of the measure being struck down.

The governor also vetoed AB 1017, which

Last week, the state legislature passed AB 465 — a bill that prohibits employers from asking employees to agree to arbitrate employment claims unless the employees have their own attorneys negotiate the terms. Passing the bill looks like a futile exercise. The Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law in this area. In 2011, when the

Here’s yet another post from Dave Faustman. This time he discusses today’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, in which Fox Rothschild LLP represented the employer.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Today, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Iskanian v. CLS on whether employees signing arbitration agreements can be required to waive participation in

On April 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in front of a packed courtroom in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, a case involving the enforceability of class/representative action waivers in employment arbitration agreements under California law.  This is a very important decision for employers in California, and one that is very close