<img src="//bat.bing.com/action/0?ti=5189112&amp;Ver=2" height="0" width="0" style="display:none; visibility: hidden;">

    The Lawletter Blog

    Nadine Roddy

    Recent Posts

    EMPLOYMENT: Arbitration—“Gateway Issues”

    Posted by Nadine Roddy on Mon, Feb 4, 2019 @ 12:02 PM

    The Lawletter Vol 44 No 2

    Nadine Roddy—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

                When an arbitration agreement is in effect, who decides whether an employment dispute—or any dispute for that matter—is arbitrable? The Supreme Court recently released a pair of decisions that address this issue under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., ___ S. Ct. ___, 202 L. Ed. 2d 480, 2019 WL 122164 (Jan. 8, 2019), and New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2019 WL 189342 (Jan. 15, 2019).

                Each case involved an arbitration agreement that contained a clause delegating the issue of arbitrability of disputes to an arbitrator rather than a court. The Supreme Court had previously held that such clauses are enforceable under the FAA. Rent-A-Center W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (applying 9 U.S.C. § 2). Some courts of appeals developed an exception to this general rule, holding that a court need not grant a motion to compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA if the argument that the underlying claim is within the scope of the arbitration agreement is "wholly groundless." These courts reasoned that such an exception would enable courts to block frivolous attempts to transfer disputes from the court system to arbitration.

    Read More

    Topics: contracts, Federal Arbitration Act, arbitration clause, Nadine Roddy, gateway issue of arbitrability, exceptions to Act

    EMPLOYMENT: Age Discrimination—Public Employers

    Posted by Nadine Roddy on Thu, Dec 27, 2018 @ 09:12 AM

    The Lawletter Vol 43 No 8

     

    Nadine Roddy—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

     

                The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") applies to all public employers, including those with fewer than 20 employees, a unanimous Supreme Court held in its first merits decision of the October 2018 term. Thus, the 20-employee minimum that applies to private employers does not apply to a state or its subdivisions. The 8-0 decision, Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido, ___ S. Ct. ___, 202 L. Ed. 2d 262 (2018), resolves a split of authority between the Ninth Circuit on one hand and the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits on the other.

    Read More

    Topics: Nadine Roddy, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, public employer, less than 20 employees, application to state and local governments

    New Call-to-action
    Free Hour of Legal Research  for New Clients
    Seven ways outsourcing your legal research can empower your practice

    Subscribe to The Lawletter

    Latest Posts