In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires a court to stay a proceeding pending arbitration and provides no discretion for the court to dismiss the action. In Smith v. Spizzirri,1 the Supreme Court settled a significant circuit split on the interpretation
On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a district court’s order vacating the attachment of property under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty. The property at issue was seized in support of a time charterer’s claims pending in UK arbitration. The Third Circuit found that, in order to qualify as facially valid maritime claims for purposes of Rule B, the claims must be actually asserted and ready for adjudication. Applying English law to the claims, the Court held that while a claim for the breach of a charter party qualified, a claim for implied indemnity and a contingent breach of charter party claim did not.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Restores Rule B Attachment Based On Breach of Contract Claim Under English Law, Implied Indemnity Claim Not Enough
In a significant win for the #MeToo movement, the U.S. Senate passed a bill on Thursday, February 10, 2021, which ensures that employees who are sexually harassed or assaulted in the workplace can pursue their claims in court. The bill invalidates pre-dispute agreements that require individuals to arbitrate claims related to sexual harassment or sexual
On January 25, 2021, the United States Supreme Court dismissed, as “improvidently granted,” a writ of certiorari it had previously granted on a petition asking it to consider “[w]hether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.”
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the climate change lawsuit filed by the City of Baltimore in 2018 against energy companies. This case is one of a number of cases brought by states, cities, and other municipalities against energy companies alleging that the companies contributed to climate change. By granting certiorari and hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision remanding the suit to state court after rejecting the energy companies’ contention that they were acting as federal officers pursuant to historical contracts with the federal government.
Continue Reading It’s Heating Up: United States Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Proper Jurisdiction for Climate-Change Lawsuit
Today, the United States Supreme Court granted a Petition for Certiorari filed by energy companies in Baltimore’s climate change lawsuit. By granting the petition, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision remanding the suit to state court after rejecting the energy companies’ contention that they were acting as federal officers pursuant to historical contracts with the federal government.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court To Review Scope of Appellate Review for Federal Officer Removal in Climate Change Litigation
Today the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in this landmark case concerning punitive damages. The six justices in the majority opinion reversed the Ninth Circuit and resolved a circuit split on this issue. The question presented was whether punitive damages may be awarded to a Jones Act seaman in a personal injury suit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor.Continue Reading SCOTUS Decides Dutra Group v. Batterton
Commercial and employment agreements often include provisions requiring arbitration of disputes between the parties. Some of these agreements contain “delegation clauses” requiring the arbitrator (as opposed to a court) to decide whether the dispute is subject to arbitration. Despite such provisions, one party may sue the other because it perceives an advantage to proceeding in court or wants to test the outer limits of the arbitration provision. The first battle in these suits is over who—the court or an arbitrator—decides whether the dispute must be arbitrated. In unanimous decisions issued over the last week, the Supreme Court addressed two scenarios where the parties fought over this question, despite having delegated questions of “arbitrability” to an arbitrator. Read together, the Court’s decisions clarify that a court should first decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applies to the parties’ agreement. If so, the court must honor the delegation clause and refer the matter to arbitration.Continue Reading New U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Clarify the Courts’ Authority to Compel Arbitration
The United States Supreme Court ruled today that contracts requiring individualized arbitration of employment-related disputes are enforceable and do not violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Background
Some employers require their employees to enter into agreements binding the parties to arbitrate employment-related disputes. In recent years, many of those employers have drafted their mandatory arbitration agreements to prohibit employees from pursuing class or collective actions, which can be costly and eliminate the informality and speed of arbitration. For example, the plaintiffs in the three cases decided by the Supreme Court today agreed not to pursue unpaid overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of other employees in class or collective actions.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Validates Employer’s Right to Require Class and Collective Action Waivers in Employment-Related Arbitration Agreements
Hours before a controversial set of new reporting requirements for government contractors was set to take effect, a federal court in Texas enjoined implementation of the requirements across the country.
Continue Reading New Government Contractor “Blacklisting” Reporting Requirements Put on Hold