Update and Discussion on Legal and Practical Issues
Case in Point -- Recent Updates in California Employment Law
Employment Law Now V-92 – Analyzing Congress’ Proposed “Pro Act” and Its Implication on Labor Law
Employment Law Now IV-55 – Six Significant Developments to be On Your Radar
[WEBINAR] 2019 Annual Labor & Employment Update
III-41- Things That Make You Go “Hmmm” in Employment Law
On January 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant opinion holding that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration...more
On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) unanimously held that when a district court finds that when a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding...more
Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024) and Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 144 S. Ct. 1186 (2024) provide important guidance for companies utilizing arbitration clauses in their...more
What happens when a party required by contract to arbitrate a claim tries pursuing it in court, nonetheless? Should the case be dismissed? Or must the court hold the case on its docket while the parties seek resolution...more
On May 16, 2024, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that, when enforcing an arbitration clause subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), if any party requests a stay, the district court lacks discretion to...more
On May 16, 2024, in Smith v. Spizzirri, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a long-standing circuit split that affects motions to compel arbitration in federal court. Specifically, the Court answered whether...more
Mandatory arbitration agreements remain popular for employers concerned about the cost, delays, and unpredictability of traditional litigation. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires federal courts to defer in most...more
The U.S. Department of Labor estimates 56 percent of all nonunion private-sector employees are subject to mandatory arbitration agreements. Many employers use such agreements—and the class action waivers contained therein—to...more
“Shall” means “shall” in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22–1218 (May 16, 2024). The Court explained the language in the FAA providing a court “shall on...more
In Smith v. Spizzirri, the Supreme Court unanimously held that federal district courts lack the power to dismiss a case sent to arbitration. Instead, under the Federal Arbitration Act, if a party moves to compel arbitration...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided an issue concerning cases that are subject to arbitration that has divided the federal courts of appeals: when the claims at issue in a federal court suit are subject to arbitration, does...more
On May 16, 2024, the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Spizzirri addressed whether district courts are required to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or if they have the discretion to dismiss the suit when all the...more
On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held that when a district court compels claims to arbitration and a party has requested a stay under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the district court is...more
The Supreme Court issued a decision Thursday in a case named Smith, et al. v. Spizzirri, et al., that has significant import for the franchise community. Many, if not the vast majority of, franchise agreements contain clauses...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide an issue concerning cases that are subject to arbitration that has divided the federal appeals courts: when the claims at issue in a federal court suit are subject to arbitration,...more
There are times when one would rather not be proven right. Nearly four years ago, a California district court invalidated AB 51, which sought to prohibit mandatory arbitration by, among other things, calling for criminal...more
Mandatory Arbitration is Alive and Well - A big win for California employers was announced February 15, 2023, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta found...more
Our Labor & Employment Group examines why the Ninth Circuit reversed itself and ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California law that prohibited arbitration agreements as a condition of employment....more
Avid readers of Stokes Wagner’s legal updates may be familiar with California’s Assembly Bill 51, a law that, until very recently, prohibited California employers from requiring employees or job applicants to sign arbitration...more
Employers – and, in particular, car dealerships – have relied on binding arbitration agreements to resolve employment disputes for decades. Arbitration offers a confidential setting in which businesses can efficiently...more
Since the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC in 2014, it has been widely understood that Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”) actions cannot be subject to employment...more
A divided Ninth Circuit panel dealt a blow to California employers recently in holding that a state law prohibiting mandatory arbitration agreements is largely not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). California...more
A recent 9th Circuit ruling has cast doubt on employers’ ability to implement mandatory arbitration agreements for workers, and whether (and to what extent) there will be civil and criminal penalties for doing so. Until the...more
California employers breathed a bit easier once a federal judge pressed the indefinite pause button on the newly enacted law aimed at preventing employers from utilizing mandatory arbitration agreements. Now, a few weeks...more
As part of its efforts to rescind outdated guidance on a rolling basis, the EEOC recently dispensed with a 22-year-old policy statement that disfavored mandatory arbitration agreements between employers and employees....more