On April 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempted California state contract law which courts had applied to invalidate arbitration agreements that did not permit class arbitration. Although the decision involved a consumer contract, the Supreme Court’s reasoning provides a basis for employers to seek enforcement of employment agreements that prohibit workplace class actions and require the individual arbitration of employment-related claims.Continue Reading Supreme Court’s AT&T Mobility Decision Provides Support For Use Of Employment Arbitration Agreements With Class Action Waivers
arbitration clauses
The Sixth Circuit Holds that a Waiver Request Option Saves an Otherwise Questionable $500 Arbitration Fee for Employees
By Porter Wright on
Ever wonder if you can require an employee to split the costs of mandatory arbitration? The Sixth Circuit reinforced its 2003 en banc decision that allows for cost-splitting provisions in arbitration awards in the decision it issued Tuesday in the case of Mazera v. Varsity Ford Services, LLC et al. Of course, the court’s decision is not simply an affirmation that cost-splitting provisions are okay–rather, it is an affirmation that the validity of these provisions must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Continue Reading The Sixth Circuit Holds that a Waiver Request Option Saves an Otherwise Questionable $500 Arbitration Fee for Employees