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
“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
As of February 15, 2023, employers in California may once again require mandatory arbitration as the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), a...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
The California legislature has expressed a steady animus toward arbitration agreements, particularly in the employment context. On multiple occasions, the legislature has passed laws restricting the use of arbitration...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down a California law that prohibited employers from mandating the arbitration of workplace disputes. This puts arbitration back in play in California for most 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
Mandatory arbitration agreements have been the subject of considerable litigation in California. As we previously reported, much of this discord stems from 2019’s Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which broadly prohibited employers...more
Earlier this week, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled, in the case of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta, that California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 51, which had forbidden California employers from requiring...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 51 with respect to arbitration agreements governed by the...more
In another win for California employers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed itself and ruled that Assembly Bill 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and that California employers may roll out...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