| Issues and Answers | ||
| Tips for rebuilding trust during a merger or acquisition | |||
|
| Test Your Human Resources Knowledge | ||
|
| Labor Law Journal Submissions | ||
|
| Human Resources Links | ||
|
| Labor Arbitrators' Awards and Biographies | ||
U.S. Master™ Wage-Hour Guide, 2009 Edition
Presents a first approach to the broad and complex controls under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and other statutes regulating employee wages and hours.
In another case testing the US Supreme Court's decidedly pro-arbitration policy, the High Court granted certiorari in Rent-A-Center West, Inc v Jackson (Dkt No 09-497), to decide if a court, and not an arbitrator, must determine whether an arbitration agreement signed by a employee suing for race bias is unconscionable, despite a provision in the agreement giving the arbitrator "exclusive authority" to resolve disputes over interpretation, applicability, enforceability and formation of the agreement.
The nation's largest furniture and electronics rent-to-own company, Rent-A-Center, West, Inc, filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision from September 2009 holding that where there is a claim of unconscionability regarding an arbitration agreement, the court, not an arbitrator, is to decide the issue.
The petitioner, Antonio Jackson, had filed a Section 1981 race discrimination claim, but Rent-A-Center argued that the agreement required the issues be brought before an arbitrator and that only the arbitrator could determine the validity of the agreement. Notwithstanding Jackson's argument that the agreement was unconscionable, the district court ruled that an arbitrator, and not it, had the authority to rule on the agreement's enforceability, and that the question of arbitrability was to be answered by an arbitrator. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that he could not be compelled to "arbitrate statutory discrimination claims." Reversing in part, the Ninth Circuit found that even though the agreement left to the arbitrator the power to determine its validity, where a party specifically challenges arbitration provisions as unconscionable, and thus asserts that he could not meaningfully assent to the agreement, the issue of whether the provisions are unconscionable is for the court to determine in the first instance applying relevant state contract law principles, no matter the terms of the agreement.
Certiorari. In granting certiorari on January 15, 2010, the Supreme Court agreed to address the following: Is the district court required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this "gateway" issue to the arbitrator for decision?
For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
©2005-2012 CCH Incorporated or its affiliates
