Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Arbitration Cases: 26
[Arbitration
Read More
[Arbitration
Read More
[Arbitration
Read More
[Arbitration
Read More
[Arbitration
Read More
[Arbitration
Read More
The Eleventh Circuit determined that the dispute resolution policy (DRP) adopted during plaintiffs
Read More
In Caley, the plaintiffs are employees (and former employees) of Gulfstream. Gulfstream implemented "dispute resolution policy" (DRP) in the summer of 2002. The policy set forth the exclusive method of resolving employment disputes between the defendant and its employees. Caley at 2.
Gulfstream adequately informed all of its employees of the new policy. They mailed it to everybody with a Q and A form; they placed the new policy on the company intranet; they distributed it through the companies newsletter (in email); and placed the policy in the facilities on numerous bulletin boards. Id.
The letter read informed the employees that the DRP was to be the exclusive remedy and listed a detailed procedure for lodging a complaint and how to appeal. The letter also stated that "continuation of employment by an individual shall be deemed to be acceptance of the DRP. NO signature shall be required for the policy to be applicable." Caley at 3.
The DRP covered all claims relating to Title VII, FMLA, ADA, and torts. The DRP at first excluded ERISSA claims, Worker's Compensation and claims under the NLRA, but later was changed to include ERISSA.
The plaintiffs sued Defendant because they believed the defendant's intentionally mischaracterized the plaintiffs "as exempt from overtime pay requirements and therefore failed to pay the plaintiffs for hours worked in excess of forty per week." Caley at 8.
The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action. The trail court entered the motion. The court of appeals affirmed and held that the DRP was valid and enforceable and the order to compel arbitration was valid. Caley at 45.
The court first discussed the validity of arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. It stated "compulsory arbitration agreements are now common in the workplace, and it is not an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require an employee to arbitrate, rather than litigate, rights under various federal statutes, including employment-discrimination statutes." Caley at 11.
The court also said "in determining whether a binding agreement arose between the parties, courts apply the contract law of the particular state that governs the formation of contracts. The federal policy favoring arbitration, however, is taken into consideration even in applying ordinary state law." Caley at 12-13.
One important requirement the Federal Arbitration Act seemed to mandate was that the agreement must be in writing. It did not have to be signed by both parties, but it needs to be a written agreement. Caley at 13-14.
A second requirement for the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to apply is that the employment relationship must affect commerce. This is because the FAA was enacted under the Commerce Clause and the contract "must evidence a transaction involving [interstate] commerce." Caley at 19.
The court held that "the Supreme court has interpreted the term involving commerce in the FAA as the functional equivalent of the more familiar term
Read More
This case involved an arbitration clause in appellant
Read More
In 2001, appellant filed a grievance against appellee through his union, alleging appellee had failed to administer a promotional examination for the position of Fire Captain (rescue) within six months of a position
Read More
Kinko
(30 Fla. L. Weekly D1180a, May 6, 2005)
2005-05-06
ARBITRATION
Plaintiff originally filed a civil action against Kinko
Read More
The Third DCA reversed the district court, holding that the appellant
Read More
Plaintiff sued his employer, Cintas Corporation, alleging he was fired from his job because he had filed a workers
Read More
Where, under collective bargaining agreement, arbitrator was authorized to determine if there was
Read More
Plaintiff sought relief for alleged handicap and race discrimination pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act. Defendant asserted that the dispute was subject to compulsory arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement among the parties. Plaintiff argued the agreement was invalid because its fee-splitting provision would result in prohibitive costs. The court found that Plaintiff put forward no evidence that he was unable to pay any arbitration fees or that he was even likely to bear such fees. Absent such evidence, the agreement cannot be found invalid. Plaintiff's second argument is that the agreement is invalid because it allows the arbitrator to award statutory fees and costs at his discretion, which is in conflict with the mandatory provision of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, that entitles prevailing parties to an award of attorney's fees. This argument was unavailing because the attorney's fee provision of the FCRA is discretionary, not mandatory. The court ordered the parties to arbitration.
Read More
Plaintiff brought suit under various federal statutes including Title VII, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and state law tort claims against Dillards alleging that Dillards discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and age and retaliated against her for reporting incidents of harassment by the store manager. Dillards sought to compel arbitration and filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay this action and to compel arbitration. The district court refused to compel arbitration on the ground that Dillards
Read More
Plaintiff in the lower court signed an employment agreement with Defendant, which included an arbitration clause. She was later terminated and brought suit under the Florida Civil Rights Act and a violation of the Florida Whistleblower Act. The trial judge entered an order compelling arbitration. On appeal, Appellant argued the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it forced an employee to pay half the arbitrator's fee, her own attorney's fee and other expenses of arbitration if she participates in the selection of an arbitrator. This, Appellant argues, violates her right to fee shifting under the Florida Civil Rights Act and the Florida Whistleblower Act. In Musnick v. King Motor Company of Fort Lauderdale, the 11th Circuit held that the existence of a fee splitting provision does not automatically render an arbitration agreement unenforceable. 325 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2003). The party seeking to avoid arbitration has the burden of proving that the obligation to share arbitration expenses would effectively deny remedies available by statute. Id. The plaintiff in this case did not allege that the expenses of arbitration would be so high as to prevent her from pursuing her claims. Furthermore, she will be able to present issues regarding expenses, regardless of the outcome of arbitration.
Plaintiff also contended the arbitration would prevent her from receiving the kind of systemic injunctive relief that is available under the applicable statutes because EMC's arbitration policy provides the arbitrator may not change the company's practices or procedures. The court disagreed, holding an award of injunctive relief is regularly awarded by arbitrators and nothing about this dispute would prevent it here.
Finally, plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because the terms of the arbitration policy were not disclosed to her when she signed the employment agreement. The court held plaintiff could not rely on her ignorance. The clause was not inconspicuously located in the agreement, nor was it written in fine print.
Read More
In this collective action, Plaintiff Chapman brought suit under 29 U.S.C.
Read More
Fernandez worked for Clear Channel. He had signed an Arbitration Agreement, which covered the claims contained in his complaint. Clear Channel sought an order from the Court compelling arbitration.
Fernandez claimed the agreement was unenforceable because the agreement failed
Read More
The plaintiff entered into an arbitration agreement with his former employer regarding any discrimination claims that might arise. Plaintiff eventually pursued a religious discrimination claim and sought to avoid the arbitration agreement on the basis that the fee shifting agreement rendered it unenforceable. The court reiterated that the plaintiff
Read More
The employer filed suit in circuit court against three former employees alleging breach of certain employment agreements. The employees filed a motion to dismiss and asserted that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the employees and the company. Pointdirex was a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The NASD is a voluntary association and its Manual-Code requires arbitration when disputes arise from terminations between NASD members and their employees. The court pointed to prior Florida precedent which established that the constitution and bylaws of a voluntary association when they have been assented to constitute a contract between association and the members. The employment contracts signed by the employees also contained personal jurisdiction and venue clauses. The employer asserted that the venue clauses constituted waiver of the arbitration requirements imposed by Pointdirex
Read More
Plaintiff was transferred to AmSouth Bank
Read More
Plaintiff was transferred to AmSouth Bank
Read More
Employer required employees to sign a compulsory arbitration agreement as a condition of continued employment. Several employees who refused were terminated. The plaintiffs claimed that the mandatory arbitration provisions were an unlawful employment practice and that they were terminated in retaliation for statutorily protected practice. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs could not have reasonably believed that the employer was engaged in an unlawful employment practice by requiring its employees to sign the agreements because courts have consistently found that claims arising under federal statutes may be the subject of arbitration agreements and are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. Furthermore, there is nothing in the text of Title VII, ADEA, or the ADA which identifies compulsory arbitration as an unlawful employment practice.
Read More
Employer required employees to sign a compulsory arbitration agreement as a condition of continued employment. Several employees who refused were terminated. The plaintiffs claimed that the mandatory arbitration provisions were an unlawful employment practice and that they were terminated in retaliation for statutorily protected practice. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs could not have reasonably believed that the employer was engaged in an unlawful employment practice by requiring its employees to sign the agreements because courts have consistently found that claims arising under federal statutes may be the subject of arbitration agreements and are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. Furthermore, there is nothing in the text of Title VII, ADEA, or the ADA which identifies compulsory arbitration as an unlawful employment practice.
Read More
The court found that the appellant was personally liable on a guarantee of the provision of an agreement, which included an arbitration clause, between the appellee and another person. Thus, he was bound as a matter of law to arbitrate the dispute.
Read More
