Last year when the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams,[1]� that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)[2]� applies to pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate disputes between employers and their employees, as is often the case it left a number of questions unanswered.
Among these, and accordingly among the issues that have been litigated and commented upon in the wake of Circuit City, are the questions of who should bear the costs of arbitration, what procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that the arbitration provides the employee with the same rights and remedies that would be available in court (as the Supreme Court’s ruling expressly required), and to what extent an arbitration agreement may or should exclude certain classes of claims.[3]� The one rule that we all thought was settled, however, was that an employer can legally require its employees, as a condition of employment, to submit to an arbitration program.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
