For many workers, signing an employment contract with a confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-competition, or non-solicitation clause is a necessary part of accepting and keeping a job. What they don't anticipate, however, is that those provisions can be leveraged against them to restrict employees' rights to challenge unlawful practices and find other work, placing their livelihoods and future employment in jeopardy.
Last week, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck a blow to employers that require their employees to waive their right to bring class and collective actions to remedy wage and hour violations, finding these waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act's right to engage in "concerted activities" to improve workplace conditions.
A federal district court judge in San Francisco issues a blockbuster opinion holding Uber's arbitration policy with its drivers unenforceable under California law. The court holds that the policy - imposed by way of a cell-phone clickbox screen - created a one-sided forum for resolution of legal disputes.
Arbitration is a common, employer imposed method for resolving employment conflicts without going to court. However, Outten & Golden Partner Wendi Lazar suggests that when an employee is forced by contract to arbitrate rather than sue, arbitration becomes a means for employers to suppress the rights their employees would be entitled to in court.
Clearing up some confusion among the lower federal courts, the Sixth Circuit confirms that the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) § 301 does not supersede an employee's federal statutory right to file a civil action to remedy a violation of her rights under the ADA.
The Fifth Circuit, applying 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 249 (2009), holds that the UPS collective bargaining agreement did not "clearly and umistakably" waive a driver's right to commence a Title VII sex discrimination suit.
Owing to a tactical decision by the defendant and some inopportune drafting, a panel of the First Circuit holds (2-1) that an arbitration clause tacked onto an employment application did not apply to a person who interviewed for a job but was never hired - allegedly because she was eight months' pregnant at the time.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced on January 25, 2012 that it fined brokerage house Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith $1 million for requiring employees to resolve disputes relating to "retention bonuses" in New York state courts. The FINRA rules require its member firms and their employees to arbitrate such disputes in FINRA arbitration.
In this long-lived appeal, involving an antitrust tying claim against the American Express Company, the Second Circuit reaffirms its prior holding that an arbitration clause preventing class-action litigation of a medium-dollar claim may be unenforceable if its practical effect is to prevent the plaintiffs from vindicating their statutory rights.
In a recent arbitration decision, a panel of FINRA arbitrators awarded $3.25 million in damages, interest, and costs to a broker who had alleged defamation and other claims against his former employer. The decision (known as an "award") concluded the arbitration proceedings in the case of Gorter v. Questar Capital Corp, FINRA Case No. 08-03514 (award signed Jan. 13, 2012).