Bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (June 15, 2022).
A party is not required to show prejudice to establish that an opposing party has waived its right to arbitrate by litigating in court, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a unanimous decision. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., No. 21-328 (May 23, 2022).
The U.S. Supreme Court today held that waiver of the right to arbitrate does not require a showing that the other party was prejudiced. The unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan in Morgan v. Sundance reversed the Eighth Circuit, which had held that a party waives the right to arbitrate if it knew of the right, acted inconsistently with that right and prejudiced the other party by its inconsistent actions.
Many commercial and residential real estate companies require property buyers to sign arbitration agreements. Arbitration often is used as an alternative to litigation and is supposed to be more affordable and faster than litigation.
This question is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (No. 21-309), a putative wage-and-hour collective action. The court heard oral argument on March 28, 2022. (Only eight of the nine justices participated. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was recused from this case.)
Although the Court has endorsed a “look-through” approach to federal jurisdiction over petitions to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), that approach does not apply to petitions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 or 10 of the FAA, an 8-1 majority of the Court held, citing the different language in the respective statutory provisions.
Highlighted below are several recent opinions from the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) that provide helpful guidance to sponsors, investors and practitioners.
On March 3, 2022, President Biden signed a bill into law that prohibits the enforcement of contract provisions mandating third-party arbitration of workplace sexual harassment or assault claims and allows victims to have their “day in court.”
Employers can no longer mandate pre-dispute arbitration for claims of sexual assault or sexual harassment by employers. On Feb. 10, 2022, Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “law”) ending any dispute as to whether the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (FAA), preempted state laws seeking to prohibit mandatory pre-dispute arbitration of employee sexual harassment claims. The law amends the FAA and makes pre-dispute arbitration agreements between employers and employees that would otherwise obligate the parties to arbitrate claims of sexual assault or sexual harassment invalid and unenforceable. President Biden is expected to sign the Act into law.
In January 2022, the New York State Senate introduced a bill that seeks to impose significant human rights and environmental due diligence and disclosure obligations on fashion retail sellers and manufacturers operating in the state of New York.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel’s office issued a memorandum reiterating the rights of immigrant workers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Continuing its aggressive approach to expanding legal protections for workers and labor unions, the General Counsel’s office of the NLRB issued Memorandum OM 22-09, reiterating NLRB policy on workers’ rights to access the NLRB collective bargaining and remedial procedures regardless of immigration status, without fear of reprisals from their employers or the federal government.
Effective January 1, 2023, Washington employers with at least 15 employees must affirmatively disclose the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all benefits and other compensation being offered when posting job openings, regardless of whether such information is requested by the applicant.
While the United States awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which may overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the federal standard for abortion access, some states are considering setting their own standards that would ban or protect the medical procedure.
As volatility in the cryptocurrency market has increased, regulators in the United States and around the world have indicated a willingness to impose tougher compliance requirements related to crypto assets. As a result, there is an increasing likelihood that companies that hold or deal in crypto assets may be subject to additional regulations in the coming years.
Manufacturers in the U.S. should take note of a new request for comment from the United States Trade Representative as a lack of support may lead to removal of the tariffs and surge in unfairly priced imports.
On May 18, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n, in which it examined the constitutionality of an agency civil money penalty enforcement proceeding.
From changing regulatory to employment issues, get practice advisories designed just for In-House Counsel. Subscribe for free.Subscribe Now
Unlock even more great content and insights by subscribing now. It's Free!Sign Up
Already have an account? Sign In.