Sin categoría

Employment Agreement Arbitration Clause

While we are on the forum, don`t forget the question of the venue of the event. Good deal at every arbitration at one place instead of getting comfortable for you. This is especially important if the company is headquartered or has satellite branches in other countries or states or in remote cities. Travel, accommodation and time can be considerably solving costs and annoyance. This question arises more and more often in our practice. Arbitration is good or bad; less or more expensive; less or fairer? Is the clause applicable? Can I get out of it? The answers depend on both the circumstances, the exact terms of the arbitration clause and who asks the question. There is a considerable amount of conventional wisdom to each of these questions, but in fact, there are no constant answers. Here are some thoughts on how to view arbitration in the context of the working relationship: think about the reciprocity of the arbitration mechanism. In other words, does your employer have to take the disputed cases to an arbitration tribunal, or is it simply forced? In 1998, the Federal Court of Appeals, which governs the State of California, issued its decision to Duffield v. Roberts- Stevenson Company (9. 1998) 144 F.3d 1182. The Duffield court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibited the application of mandatory employment contracts to settle claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or state anti-discrimination laws equivalent to those of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). In Duffield, the case was a stockbroker who was attempting to charge government and federal discrimination claims against their employer as a result of allegations of sexual discrimination and harassment.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 states that “where appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, the use of other means of dispute resolution, including . . . . Arbitration is encouraged to resolve disputes arising from federal statutes or provisions that are amended by that title. Despite this language, the court found the status congress`s intention to prohibit mandatory civil rights arbitration of employees.