The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Lamps Plus vs. Varela, in which it found that a class action cannot be arbitrated unless the parties` arbitration agreement explicitly states that class actions may be dealt with in arbitration. The Court thus annulled the ninth. On June 26, 2019, Denise Cote, a judge for the Southern District of New York, granted an application to impose arbitration on a plaintiff`s claims of sexual harassment, in which she stated that the New York State`s ban on mandatory mediation of sexual harassment claims by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) must be anticipated. As we mentioned on our blog about passing this law, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that state laws that explicitly identify a category of non-negotiable state rights are anticipated by the FAA. In Latif, Morgan Stanley & Co., the Southern District, followed the Supreme Court and ruled new York`s ban on mandatory conciliation of sexual harassment claims unenforceable. Read More Southern District of New York overturns the state`s ban on mandatory arbitration of harassment and discrimination One of the most important aspects of arbitration flexibility is arbitrator selection. Unlike civil court proceedings in which the parties are blocked with the judge to whom they are assigned, arbitration allows the parties to choose an experienced arbitrator in litigation matters.

However, one of the disadvantages is that employers often try to choose arbitrators they believe are supportive of their case. With regard to the need for arbitration in the event of a dispute, employers should assess the benefits and risks of arbitration. The benefits of arbitration are typically as follows: in addition to the fundamental principles of contract law that have been discussed above, California employers must also ensure that their arbitration agreements comply with the requirements of the California Supreme Court in Armendariz. In this case, the Tribunal decided that agreements reconciling workplace discrimination and other legal rights must meet the following requirements to be enforceable under California law: (1) requiring neutral arbitrators; (2) allow for more than minimal discoveries; (3) require a written decision from the arbitrator; (4) authorize all types of remedies that are otherwise available in court; and (5) not require staff members to pay inappropriate arbitration fees or charges as a prerequisite for access to arbitration. From 1715, if the governor signs it, will probably be suppressed under the precedent of the FAA and the Supreme Court of the United States. As noted above, the FAA anticipates all state laws that are inconsistent with the FAA`s goal of promoting arbitration. In Doctor`s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto and Circuit City Stores v. Adams, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state courts cannot invalidate arbitration agreements under state laws that apply only to arbitration rules. AB 1715 is certainly a state law that applies only to arbitration agreements (and not contracts in general) and therefore are unlikely to survive a legal challenge.

Take this opportunity to check your arbitration agreement, to make sure it says what you mean. Just in case, let a lawyer give you a second look. And if your arbitration agreement is old enough to wear a mask, check that it needs to be updated to meet your needs and the ever-changing legal landscape. Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., a May 2003 decision, the Tribunal distinguished its prior decisions to Ahmed and Najd on the basis that the applicant in Ingle did not have a reasonable opportunity to withdraw from the arbitration agreement or negotiate the terms of the agreement. . . .