Legislation

Part I: How Workplace ADR Will Evolve Under the Biden Administration

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Antranik Chekemian

Anna Hershenberg, Vice President of Programs and Public Policy & Corporate Counsel, welcomed an online audience of nearly 200 attendees for the CPR Institute’s webinar “What Labor and Employment ADR Will Look Like Under a Biden Administration?” The Feb. 24 webinar was presented jointly by CPR’s Employment Disputes Committee and its Government & ADR Task Force.

This is the first of two CPR Speaks installments with highlights from the discussion.

Hershenberg shared background information for attendees who were new to CPR, and reviewed CPR activities. [Check out www.cpradr.org for future public and members-only events, including the March 25 program on Managing Conflict in the Workplace Remotely. For information on access and joining CPR, please visit CPR’s Membership webpage here.]

Hershenberg then turned the program over to Aaron Warshaw, a shareholder in the New York office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, who is chair of CPR’s Employment Disputes Committee. Warshaw described the Employment Disputes Committee as “made up of in-house employment counsel, management-side attorneys, employee-side attorneys, and neutrals. Throughout its long history, the committee … [has provided] a platform for all of the stakeholders to come together and explore ways to resolve disputes in employment matters,”.

Last year, the committee presented a panel discussion about COVID-19-related employment claims. (Video available here.) There was also a panel discussion on mass individual arbitration claims during last year’s CPR Annual Meeting in Florida.

Warshaw also noted that the committee is currently working on soon-to-be-released administered employment arbitration rules, and a workplace disputes programs. “There is also an active committee currently revising CPR’s Employment-Related Mass Claims Protocol,” he said.  The release of these projects will be announced at www.cpradr.org and on social media.

Warshaw then introduced the panel moderator, Arthur Pearlstein, who is Director of Arbitration for the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service, a Washington, D.C.-based independent agency whose mission is to preserve and promote labor-management peace and cooperation. He also directs FMCS’s Office of Shared Neutrals and has previously served as the agency’s general counsel.

Pearlstein opened the conversation stating that “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris ran a campaign that reflected a closer alignment with organized labor than I think we’ve seen in a very long time.”

Pearlstein pointed out the remarks made by President Biden a week ahead of the CPR program, where the president called himself a “labor guy,” and referred to labor people as “the folks that brung me to the dance.” Pearlstein, however, noted that Biden “did hasten to add, ‘There’s no reason why it’s inconsistent with business-growing either.’”

Pearlstein further said that even though it had been just a month since the inauguration at the time of the panel discussion, already dramatic steps had been taken.  He cited the firing of the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel.

The president has also issued a number of executive orders and halted some regulations. “He definitely wants to be seen as a champion of worker rights,” said Pearlstein.

Pearlstein added that Biden backs “the most significant piece of labor legislation since perhaps Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, . . . the PRO Act, that would dramatically change the landscape in the labor relations world in a way that’s very favorable to unions.” See Mark Kantor, “House Passes ‘PRO’ Act, Which Includes Arbitration Restrictions,” CPR Speaks (March 10) (available at https://bit.ly/38u5w87).

Biden also supports the FAIR Act which, if passed, could end mandatory employment arbitration, said Pearlstein, adding that Covid-19 in the workplace and the rights of gig workers are also important administration considerations. See Mark Kantor, “House Reintroduces a Proposal to Restrict Arbitration at a ‘Justice Restored’ Hearing,” CPR Speaks (Feb. 12) (available at http://bit.ly/3rze7y1).

Pearlstein introduced the panelists.

  • Mark Gaston Pearce is a Visiting Professor and Executive Director of the Georgetown University Law Center Workers’ Rights Institute. Formerly a two-term board member and chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, Pearce previously taught at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
  • Kathryn Siegel is a shareholder in Littler Mendelsohn’s Chicago office, representing employers in matters of both employment law and labor relations before federal and state courts and federal agencies like the NLRB and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as state agencies.

Mark Kantor started off the conversation by focusing on two general areas:

a) the prospects for legislative change in the Congress for arbitration of employment and labor issues; and

b) the prospects for regulatory measures by independent or executive agencies in the absence of new legislation.

Kantor pointed out that the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act was reintroduced in the House and the Senate. The House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on the matter on Feb. 11.

He noted that, in the previous Congress, the legislation passed the House of Representatives by a 225-186 vote–all Democrats plus two Republicans. When it reached the Senate, however, “it went nowhere,” he said. “Not surprising,” he said, under Republican control, “There were no hearings, there were no committee markups, no committee activity, and the FAIR Act certainly never reached the floor of the Senate.”

In the current Congress, however, he noted, “We can expect the FAIR Act to pass the House of Representatives again, and then go to the Senate. Matters in the Senate might be a little different than they were in the last Congress. We can . . . expect committee activity, hearings, possibly a markup, maybe getting the legislation to the floor of the Senate.”

He said that Senate floor challenges exist for the legislation, because substantive measures are subject to a filibuster. Overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes.

He added that Republicans are united in their opposition to the FAIR Act as it currently stands. Moreover, trying to avoid the filibuster by altering Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster runs into the problem that there are at least two Democratic Senators who will oppose that: Sen. Joe Manchin, from West Virginia, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona. Therefore, he said, “overriding a filibuster seems highly unlikely.”

A way to avoid the filibuster is budget reconciliation, said Kantor, which is the route that was  taken for the Covid-19 stimulus legislation. He noted, however, that the FAIR Act’s anti-arbitration provisions are unlikely to fall within the scope of budget reconciliation. He further explained:

That means there are very few formal ways to avoid the filibuster. Some people have suggested that Vice President Harris might simply override a parliamentary ruling that the legislation is outside the scope of budget reconciliation. That is also not likely to go anywhere, because Senators Manchin and Sinema will not support that. Consequently, you don’t have 50 votes out of the Democrats and you’re certainly not going to get any Republican votes to reach the threshold to allow Vice President Harris to make that decision.

Kantor then noted that there could still be other prospects for passage:

  1. Appending the FAIR Act or other legislation to a “must pass” piece of legislation:  “That’s exactly how restrictions on arbitration for consumer finance and securities arbitration, and whistleblower protections, was passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act [in 2010], which did get 60 votes in support, because it was ‘must pass’ legislation,” he said.

  2. Narrow legislation: Kantor noted that during the Feb. 11 hearing, “the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. [Ken Buck, a Republican] from Colorado, did signal an interest in supporting two narrow areas of restriction. One was for sexual harassment and racial discrimination, and the other was to override non-disclosure agreements for those two types of disputes.” Kantor added that Buck’s support sends a signal that Republicans on the Senate side also may be “open to focus targeted legislation, aiming at those two narrow areas.”

Kantor also pointed out that a provision in the National Defense Appropriations Act, which is renewed annually, “prohibits mandatory pre-dispute arbitration for sexual harassment and Title VII claims under procurement contracts in the national defense area and subcontracts for those procurements. That is not controversial in the national defense contracting community.”

But the bottom line here, he said, is that the filibuster will determine whether the FAIR Act or any of the other pieces of legislation like the PRO Act, which contain restrictions on pre-dispute arbitration for employment and labor, have a chance of Senate passage.

On regulatory measures, Kantor pointed out that the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis decision “set a very high barrier to utilizing preexisting general statutory authority for administrative agencies, independent, or executive agencies. It said that in order to prevail, the claim must show ‘clear and manifest’ intention to displace the Federal Arbitration Act.”

He continued: “Congress would be expected to have specifically addressed preexisting law, such as the Federal Arbitration Act. That meant ‘no’ for the [Fair Labor Standards Act], ‘no’ for the [National Labor Relations Act], and in subsequent court decisions, also ‘no’ for Title VII, [the Americans with Disabilities Act], [and the Age Discrimination in Employment] arguments.”

As a result, he added, one “can’t generally rely on pre-existing labor relations legislation to override mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements.” But Kantor provided two possible avenues agencies could explore in order to not run into an Epic Systems problem. He explained:

One is that you could avoid Epic Systems by focusing on the prohibition of class procedures, and prohibiting a prohibition of class procedures in any forum–that would be litigation and arbitration, and therefore would be nondiscriminatory. Indeed, the Epic Systems decision says, in essence, the Federal Arbitration Act sets up a nondiscrimination approach to whether or not other acts can be utilized to prevent arbitration. If it’s focused only on a fundamental attribute of arbitration, then there might be conflict preemption by the FAA. On the other hand, if it spreads more generally, there might not be.

The second avenue would be to look at nondisclosure agreements as Rep. Buck mentioned during the Feb. 11 hearing. Kantor added that the FAIR Act covers employment, civil rights, class action, antitrust legislation, and consumer disputes. If passed, it would also prohibit pre-dispute joint-action waivers of those disputes in any forum.

* * *

Mark Gaston Pearce’s highlights focused on what is to be expected from the National Labor Relations Board with the Biden Administration.

Pearce started off with a focus on the composition of the five-member NLRB. by pointing out that even though Biden is in office, the majority of the NLRB is still Republican appointees, and that this will not change until August 2021.

He then discussed some of the NLRB cases. “There is a lot to be undone by the Trump board since the Trump board did a whole lot of undoing itself,” he said. He explained: “Among those things that the Trump board did was weakening the election reforms that were made in 2015,” said Pearce.

He explained that the Trump board changed union election rules by providing employers an increased ability to challenge and litigate certain issues prior to the election, and increased the length of time between the filing of a petition and the election date. “They were mandating that there should be a certain minimum time period to pass before an election,” he said.

Moreover, the Trump Board “lengthened the time period for an employer to serve a voter list and lengthened the time period for which an election is to be held if there was going to be a challenge to the [NLRB] Regional Director’s decision,” he said. [Among other things, Regional Directors are empowered to administer union elections.  See the NLRB’s Organization and Functions, Sec. 203.1 (available at https://bit.ly/3ls48Ij.]

Pearce explained, “All of those provisions and a few more were struck by a [federal] district court judge once [they] went into effect. The basis for . . . striking . . . those provisions was that the board had determined that these actions were strictly procedural, and therefore under the . . . Administrative Procedure Act, they were not obliged to go through the full notice and comment requirements.” The district court decision, however, has been appealed and it is currently pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he said.

Pearce added that it is unlikely a decision will be issued before a new majority is in place. He noted that “it’s very likely that a new majority will withdraw that appeal and those provisions of the new rule will never see the light of the day.”

Pearce said MV Transportation standards–from a 2019 NLRB decision on whether an employer’s unilateral action is permitted by a collective-bargaining agreement—will affect  arbitrators. In the case, he explained, the NLRB abandoned a standard requiring the employer to bargain over any material changes to a mandatory subject of bargaining unless the union gave a “clear and unmistakable waiver” of its right to bargain on the changes. The new standard is based on the “contract coverage.”

The “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard, Pearce explained, generally hindered an employer’s ability to make changes, so instead the board adopted the broader contract coverage standard for determining whether unionized employers’ unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment violated the National Labor Relations Act.

Pearce predicted that “MV Transportation will be revisited because the outgrowth . . . has been that unions, fearing that their position would be waived, are negotiating contracts with so many provisos or are likely to negotiate contracts with so many provisos in it that contract negotiations have become fairly untenable.”

He noted, however, that “with respect to arbitrators, there was always going to be an issue of whether or not, in fact, there is truly a contract coverage for the change that is being proposed,  and I don’t think parties are going to want to constantly go to arbitration over every little thing that they plan on doing.”

Pearce then discussed recent developments in the area of higher education. He noted that there was a proposed rule that graduate students not be considered as employees under the National Labor Relations Act. He added, however, that it was unlikely for that rule to be adopted as the majority will likely object to such status. He said he predicts that there is going to be an “increase in petitions filed for graduate student bargaining units in the universities.”

“On the other hand,” Pearce explained, “[Last year’s NLRB decision] Bethany College, which reversed [a 2013 board decision,] Pacific Lutheran, . . . has resulted in a policy that has emanated from the courts that religious universities do not have to show much to consider themselves to have a religious bent and direction and therefore exclude faculty from being able to unionize.”

He directed attendees to the recent NLRB General Motors decision. “General Motors changed the standards with respect to offensive speech . . . during the course of protected concerted activity,” he said. Pearce added that cases involving sexist and racist remarks set on the picket line is an area that should not have received protections under the NLRA, though he said he backed the board’s decision in the case.

* * *

Antranik Chekemian is a second-year student at New York’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is a CPR 2021 intern.

* * *

You can read the rest of Antranik Chekemian’s report on the CPR seminar at Part II: More on Workplace ADR Under the Biden Administration (April 19), and Part III: Deference Change–Analysis of a Shift on a Labor Arbitration Review Standard (April 26).

[END]

House Passes ‘PRO’ Act, Which Includes Arbitration Restrictions

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Mark Kantor

Yesterday, the proposed Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a 225-206 vote, with five Republicans voting Yay and one Democrat voting Nay.  The bill was sent to the U.S. Senate for consideration. 

While much arbitration-related attention in the new Congress has focused on the arbitration-only FAIR Act (for details and links, see Mark Kantor, “House Reintroduces a Proposal to Restrict Arbitration at a ‘Justice Restored’ Hearing,” CPR Speaks (Feb. 12) (available at http://bit.ly/3rze7y1)), the PRO Act contains significant provisions that, if finally enacted, would limit employment arbitration.

Most important, the PRO Act would make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to prevent employees requiring arbitration agreements that obligate an employee “not to pursue, bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of joint, class, or collective claim arising from or relating to the employment of such employee in any forum that, but for such agreement, is of competent jurisdiction.” 

Note that the coverage of the proposed PRO Act encompasses both employment contracts of adhesion and individually negotiated employment contracts, as well as covering individual independent contractors.  See Section 101(b) of the legislation at the act’s link above.

Section 104 of the PRO Act would override Epic Systems v. Lewis,138 S. Ct. 1612 (May 21)(available at https://bit.ly/2rWzAE8), with respect to employment arbitration and class proceedings. 

According to the accompanying section-by-section analysis released by the House, “ . . .  on May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court held in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that … employers may force workers into signing arbitration agreements that waive the right to pursue work-related litigation jointly, collectively or in a class action. This section overturns that decision by explicitly stating that employers may not require employees to waive their right to collective and class action litigation, without regard to union status.”  (The analysis is available at https://bit.ly/2OGrKNj).

The ultimate Senate fate of the PRO Act is linked to the fate of the filibuster.  As Politico states:

But the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which advanced mostly along party lines, is unlikely to win the 60 votes needed for passage in the narrowly controlled Senate. And already, some union leaders — who hold outsize sway in the Biden administration — are amping up pressure on Democrats to eliminate the filibuster so they can see one of their top priorities enacted.

Eleanor Mueller and Sarah Ferris, “House passes labor overhaul, pitting unions against the filibuster,” Politico (March 9) (available at http://politi.co/3vbgFEu). For the latest on the limited prospects for overturning the filibuster in the Senate, see Burgess Everett, “Anti-filibuster liberals face a Senate math problem,” Politico (March 9) (available at http://politi.co/2ObVou0). 

The filibuster affects large swaths of proposed legislation coming out of the House of Representatives and the Biden Administration agenda. We can anticipate daily media attention to every word any member of Congress or the administration speaks about the topic for some time to come.

The operative PRO Act text in Sec. 104 overriding Epic Systems reads as follows:

“(e) Notwithstanding chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Federal Arbitration Act’), or any other provision of law, it shall be an unfair labor practice under subsection (a)(1) for any employer—

“(1) to enter into or attempt to enforce any agreement, express or implied, whereby prior to a dispute to which the agreement applies, an employee undertakes or promises not to pursue, bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of joint, class, or collective claim arising from or relating to the employment of such employee in any forum that, but for such agreement, is of competent jurisdiction;

“(2) to coerce an employee into undertaking or promising not to pursue, bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of joint, class, or collective claim arising from or relating to the employment of such employee; or

“(3) to retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an employee for refusing to undertake or promise not to pursue, bring, join, litigate, or support any kind of joint, class, or collective claim arising from or relating to the employment of such employee: Provided, That any agreement that violates this subsection or results from a violation of this subsection shall be to such extent unenforceable and void: Provided further, That this subsection shall not apply to any agreement embodied in or expressly permitted by a contract between an employer and a labor organization.”;

Also, according to the proposal’s section-by-section analysis, PRO Act Section 109(c) would create a private right of action in U.S. federal court if the NLRB fails to pursue a retaliation claim.

(c) Private right to civil action.  If the NLRB does not seek an injunction to protect an employee within 60 days of filing a charge for retaliation against the employee’s right to join a union or engage in protected activity, that employee may bring a  civil  action  in  federal  district  court. The  district  court  may  award  relief  available  to employees who file a charge before the NLRB.

Yesterday’s hearings have gone viral via fiery words backing the act’s passage by Tim Ryan, D., Ohio, who chided Republicans for failing to support workers.  “Heaven forbid we pass something that’s going to help the damn workers in the United States of America!” shouted Ryan in the House chambers, adding, “Heaven forbid we tilt the balance that has been going in the wrong direction for 50 years!”

Republican opponents immediately fired back, saying that the bill would hurt workers by hurting business and the economy. For details, see Katie Shepherd, “Tim Ryan berates GOP over labor bill: ‘Stop talking about Dr. Seuss and start working with us,’” Washington Post (March 10) (available at http://wapo.st/3bz2YaF).

* * *

Mark Kantor is a member of CPR-DR’s Panels of Distinguished Neutrals. Until he retired from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, he was a partner in the firm’s Corporate and Project Finance Groups. He currently serves as an arbitrator and mediator. He teaches as an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (Recipient, Fahy Award for Outstanding Adjunct Professor). He also is Editor-in-Chief of the online journal Transnational Dispute Management. He is a frequent contributor to CPR Speaks, and this post originally was circulated to a private list serv and adapted with the author’s permission. Alternatives editor Russ Bleemer contributed to the research.

[END]

New California Law Prohibits Pre-Dispute Employment Arbitration Agreements

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Andrew Garcia

California last week enacted a new law that prohibits employers from requiring job applicants, or any existing employee, to enter into pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law Oct. 10. It also criminalizes any retaliation against an employee who refuses to enter into a pre-dispute arbitration agreement.

Assembly Bill 5, introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D., San Diego, says that a violation of the amended California Labor Code is a misdemeanor. Despite the law’s harsh prescriptions for violators, the bill clarifies that it does not purport to invalidate any existing arbitration agreement that is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

The California Chamber of Commerce identified AB 51 as a “job killer.” (See the chamber’s press release ahead of the first major hearing on the bill in March at http://bit.ly/2pmYYEu.)  The chamber said that the new law conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, 137 S.Ct. 1421 (2017), among many cited cases that it notes are part of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence favoring arbitration agreements. The chamber predicts that the law will be challenged and overturned, preempted by federal law. (You can read the chamber’s statement in opposition to the California Legislature, joined by 41 local chamber and specialized industry groups, at http://bit.ly/33zTLIz.)

As other jurisdictions wrestle with local restrictions, courts are beginning to see challenges.  A New York federal court last spring stuck down a New York state pre-dispute mandatory arbitration bar in a decision that was mirrored by the California Chamber’s view. See Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, No. 18-cv-11528, 2019 WL 2610985 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2019), where the U.S. District Court held that a newly enacted New York state law that invalidated pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. See also, Andrew Garcia, “Update: Legislatures on Invalidating Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements,” CPR Speaks blog (Aug. 1) (available at http://bit.ly/2IPg6dd).

AB 51 is one of three bills signed by Gov. Newsom, a Democrat who took office in January, that expanded California’s workplace protection laws.  “Work is about more than earning an income,” he stated, adding, “For many, a job can provide a sense of purpose and belonging–the satisfaction of knowing your labor provides value to the world. Everyone should have the ability to feel that pride in what they do, but for too many workers, they aren’t provided the dignity, respect or safety they deserve. These laws will help change that.”

That move is a big change from Newsom’s predecessor. The new law is a reintroduction of an identical 2018 bill that was vetoed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, also a Democrat–the second time Brown vetoed legislation restricting arbitration.  The California Chamber of Commerce opposition letter quotes Brown’s 2018 veto extensively, including the Kindred Nursing decision, which noted, “A rule selectively finding arbitration contracts invalid because improperly formed fares no better under the [Federal Arbitration Act] than a rule selectively refusing to enforce those agreements once properly made. Precedent confirms that point.”

An August California court decision, however, shares the new law’s skeptical arbitration view. In OTO LLC v. Kho, 447 P.3d 680 (Cal. 2019) (available at https://stanford.io/2ON8f3x), the California Supreme Court rejected the validity of an arbitration agreement because, among other reasons, the defendant required plaintiff Kho to sign the agreement as a condition of his employment.

The court found that the porter who delivered the agreement remained at Kho’s place of work until he signed the agreement, which created an impression that he had to sign it immediately. Therefore, the court ruled that since Kho had no choice but to sign the arbitration agreement or lose his job without an opportunity to review the agreement in his native language, it could not be enforced.

To view the bill in its entirety, click here.

The author, a Summer and Fall 2019 CPR Institute intern, is a law student at Brooklyn Law School.

 

 

Gov Cuomo Signs New Legislation Barring Use of Mandatory Arbitration to Resolve Workplace Discrimination and Harassment in New York State

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Anna Hershenberg

As expected, on Monday, August 12, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed new legislation that, among other things, purports to bar the use of mandatory arbitration to resolve discrimination and harassment cases in the workplace in New York state.

The prior version of this law, New York CPLR § 7515, which went into effect last year, aimed to prohibit mandatory arbitration of workplace sexual harassment claims only; this version expands the prohibition to claims of other types of discrimination.

In June, Judge Denise Cote (SDNY) found the prior version of  § 7515 to be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and therefore invalid. (Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (available at http://bit.ly/2y9w6AL)) Her ruling should apply with equal force to the amended version of § 7515, at least with respect to interstate matters.

CPR covered this issue earlier this month on CPRSpeaks:

https://blog.cpradr.org/2019/08/01/update-legislatures-on-invalidating-pre-dispute-arbitration-agreements/

The full text of the newly enacted § 7515 is pasted below (revisions in blue).

Section 7515: Mandatory arbitration clauses; prohibited

(a) Definitions. As used in this section:

1. The term “employer” shall have the same meaning as provided in subdivision five of section two hundred ninety-two of the executive law.

2. The term “prohibited clause” shall mean any clause or provision in any contract which requires as a condition of the enforcement of the contract or obtaining remedies under the contract that the parties submit to mandatory arbitration to resolve any allegation or claim of an unlawful discriminatory practice of sexual harassment. discrimination, in violation of laws prohibiting discrimination, including but not limited to, article fifteen of the executive law.

3. The term “mandatory arbitration clause” shall mean a term or provision contained in a written contract which requires the parties to such contract to submit any matter thereafter arising under such contract to arbitration prior to the commencement of any legal action to enforce the provisions of such contract and which also further provides language to the effect that the facts found or determination made by the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators in its application to a party alleging an unlawful discriminatory practice based on sexual harassment in violation of laws prohibiting discrimination, including but not limited to, article fifteen of the executive law shall be final and not subject to independent court review.

4. The term “arbitration” shall mean the use of a decision making forum conducted by an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators within the meaning and subject to the provisions of article seventy-five of the civil practice law and rules.

(b) (i) Prohibition. Except where inconsistent with federal law, no written contract, entered into on or after the effective date of this section shall contain a prohibited clause as defined in paragraph two of subdivision (a) of this section.

(ii) Exceptions. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to impair or prohibit an employer from incorporating a non-prohibited clause or other mandatory arbitration provision within such contract, that the parties agree upon.

(iii) Mandatory arbitration clause null and void. Except where inconsistent with federal law, the provisions of such prohibited clause as defined in paragraph two of subdivision (a) of this section shall be null and void. The inclusion of such clause in a written contract shall not serve to impair the enforceability of any other provision of such contract.

(c) Where there is a conflict between any collective bargaining agreement and this section, such agreement shall be controlling.

Anna Hershenberg is CPR’s Vice President of Programs and Public Policy

Update: Legislatures on Invalidating Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Andrew Garcia

A federal court has slowed the momentum by legislatures—in this case, New York state’s—to bar arbitration in employment cases. A New York U.S. District Court judge has struck down the application of a recent state law which allowed employees to avoid mandatory pre-dispute employment agreements to arbitrate sexual harassment claims.

The statute at issue, NYCPLR § 7515, originally passed and signed into law a year ago, aimed to void arbitration clauses in employment contracts that require the use of arbitration proceedings to resolve workplace sexual harassment claims in New York state. In June, the New York Senate and Assembly passed amendments to § 7515 that expanded this prohibition to agreements that sought to arbitrate all workplace discrimination claims.

This year’s bill, awaiting Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s expected signature (see http://bit.ly/2SKnH0c), was a victory for lawmakers like the sponsor, State Democratic Senator Alessandra Biaggi. (She wrote on Twitter on June 19: “6 months & 2 public hearings later, we passed #BiaggiBill S6577 to expand protections for survivors, & hold New York employers, agencies, & organizations liable for all forms of workplace sexual harassment and discrimination.” See @SenatorBiaggi.)

But any victories may be short-lived. A federal court found that the currently enacted version of § 7515 was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and therefore invalid about a week after the amendments passed both New York houses.

On June 26, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote issued an opinion that deemed a recently modified New York State law preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.  Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC et al., No. 18cv11528 – Document 52 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (available at http://bit.ly/2y9w6AL). In Latif, the plaintiff filed a suit against his employer, alleging discrimination and sexual assault claims. At the beginning of his employment, Latif signed an offer letter that incorporated by reference Morgan Stanley’s CARE Arbitration Program Arbitration Agreement.

Judge Cote found that the application of § 7515 to invalidate the parties’ agreement to arbitrate Latif’s claims would be inconsistent with the FAA. The opinion states that § 7515 does not displace the FAA’s presumption that arbitration agreements are enforceable. Judge Cote did not address the viability of § 7515 in purely an intrastate matter where the FAA would not be implicated.

The recently passed amendments to § 7515 are part of a growing trend in state and federal legislatures to pass laws that ban pre-dispute arbitration agreements for sexual harassment claims and more. In 2018, the Maryland legislature passed the Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act, which prohibited employers from enforcing arbitration agreements for sexual harassment or retaliation claims. In Vermont, the legislature passed “An Act Relating to the Prevention of Sexual Harassment,”  which prohibited agreements that prevent an employee from filing a sexual harassment claim in court.

The states have moved faster than Congress, but there is no shortage of proposals at the federal level. In the current session, there have been at least 11 new bills introduced to amend the FAA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit most employment and consumer pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

Table 1: 116th Legislative Session Bills Pertaining to Arbitration (Senate = S; House = HR)

Bill Name Bill Number Sponsors Current Status
Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act S. 610 Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D., Conn. 2/28/19: Introduced
H.R. 1423 Rep. Hank Johnson, D., Ga. 4/8/19: Referred to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law
Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination (BE HEARD) in the Workplace Act S. 1082 Sen. Patty Murray, D. Wash. 4/9/19: Introduced
H.R. 2148 Rep. Katherine Clark, D. Mass. 5/3/19: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Restoring Justice for Workers Act S. 1491 Sen. Patty Murray D., Wash. 5/15/19: Introduced and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
H.R. 2749 Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D., N.Y. 6/26/19: Referred to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law
Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act H.R. 1443 Rep. Cheri Bustos, D. Ill. 4/8/19: Referred to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law
Restoring Statutory Rights and Interests of the States Act S. 635 Sen. Patrick Leahy, D., Vt. 2/28/19: Introduced
Preventing Risky Operations from Threatening the Education and Career Trajectories of (PROTECT) Students Act S. 867 Sen. Margaret Wood Hassan, D. N.H. 3/26/19: Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Court Legal Access and Student Support (CLASS) Act S. 608 Sen. Richard Durbin, D., Ill. 2/28/19: Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
H.R. 1430 Rep. Maxine Waters, D. Calif. 4/8/19: Referred to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law
Safety Over Arbitration Act S. 620 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D., R.I. 2/28/19: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Arbitration Fairness for Consumers Act S. 630 Sen. Sherrod Brown, D., Ohio 2/28/19: Referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Justice for Servicemembers Act H.R. 2750 Rep. David Cicilline, D. R.I. 6/26/2019: Referred to the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law

 
Ending Forced Arbitration for Victims of Data Breaches Act H.R. 327 Rep. Ted Lieu, D. Calif. 1/25/19: Referred to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

The bill with the most co-sponsors (215 House members and 34 Senators) and the most prominent media coverage is the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act, which would ban pre-dispute arbitration in employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes. Introduced in both the House and the Senate, the FAIR Act was recently referred to the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

Another bill with growing support (96 House members and 18 Senators co-sponsoring) is the Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination (BE HEARD) in the Workplace Act. The BE HEARD in the Workplace Act bans all pre-dispute arbitration agreements that require arbitration of a work dispute, and all post-dispute arbitration agreements where an employee’s consent was coerced, or if the agreement was not in sufficiently plain language likely to be understood by the average worker.

The BE HEARD in the Workplace Act would also amend the NLRA to expand “Unfair Labor Practices” to situations where an employer enters into or attempts to enforce any agreement that prevents litigation, or support of joint, class, or collective claims arising from or relating to the employment of a worker, coerces the worker to enter into such an agreement, and retaliates against a worker for refusing to enter into such an agreement. The House bill, sponsored by Rep. Katherine Clark, D., Mass., is currently in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Another key bill, with 48 members of the House and 18 Senators co-sponsoring, is the Restoring Justice for Workers Act. This bill would amend the NLRA to prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements that require arbitration of work disputes, retaliation against workers for refusing to enter into arbitration agreements and ensure that post-dispute arbitration agreements are “truly voluntary.” The House bill, sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D., is currently in the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

The Latif holding that the FAA preempts § 7515 might push federal and state lawmakers to accelerate the momentum of the pending federal legislation. Judge Cote in Latif notes that the law already had been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, in dissent, as an example of state action that seeks to protect workers’ ability to bring sexual harassment suits in court in the wake of other top court decisions backing employment arbitration. See Lamps Plus v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1422 (2019) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (available at http://bit.ly/2GxwFbC).

Although legislation that has sought to ban fully pre-dispute arbitration agreements has not been successful, this could change given the political landscape and outcome of the 2020 election.

The author, a Summer 2019 CPR Institute intern, is a law student at Brooklyn Law School.

 

 

Workplace Mandatory Arb Ban Reversed by Kentucky Lawmakers

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Vincent Sauvet

Kentucky has re-authorized the use of mandatory arbitration in employment contracts less than five months after the state’s top Court declared the agreements void.

For a short time, Kentucky was the only state prohibiting the mandatory arbitration of employment disputes. Its legislature has now brought the Commonwealth back into the flock with Senate Bill 7.

In a unanimous 2018 decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the state’s Revised Statutes § 336.700(2) prohibited employers from conditioning employment on an existing employee’s or prospective employee’s agreement to “waive, arbitrate, or otherwise diminish any existing or future claim, right, or benefit to which the employee or person seeking employment would otherwise be entitled.” N. Ky. Area Dev. Dist. v. Snyder, No. 2017-SC-000277-DG, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 363 (Sep. 27, 2018) (available at http://bit.ly/2HmZp8B) (quoting the statute, which is available in full in the opinion).

While the Snyder ruling made Kentucky the nation’s first state to prohibit mandatory employee arbitration agreements, it didn’t last long. With Senate Bill 7, sponsored by state Senate President Robert Stivers, Kentucky reinstated the use of mandatory arbitration in employment contracts,  rendering such agreements enforceable. The provisions of Senate Bill 7 are to be applied retroactively and prospectively.

The bill was signed by Kentucky Gov. Matt Belvin on March 25. The bill passed in the Senate the day before following a 25-11 vote, and a 51-45 vote in the House a day earlier. Save for a few Republicans voting against the bill–eight in the House and three in the Senate–both votes showed a partisan split, with majority Republicans voting for the measure and the Democratic minority voting against (one House Democrat joined 50 Republican colleagues in approving the measure). The bill also had strong support from the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, the Kentucky League of Cities and numerous other employer and business groups.

This move happens in a context of long-running disagreement over the question of arbitration in nursing home care agreements between the Kentucky Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. In that dispute, the nation’s top Court set down the law, but the Kentucky Court managed to get in the last word and squash an arbitration agreement.

In Kindred, the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to enforce arbitration agreements signed on behalf of two nursing home residents on the ground that since the right to a trial by jury was “constitutionally sacred” and “inviolate,” the holder of a non-specific power of attorney was barred from entering any agreement on behalf of a principal that would forfeit that right to a jury trial, such as an arbitration agreement.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act  “preempts any statute rule discriminating on its face against arbitration” and “displaces any rule that covertly accomplished the same objective by disfavoring contracts that have the defining features of arbitration agreements.” It reversed the Kentucky decision in Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (2017) (available at http://bit.ly/2JAWZ7Q).

But in the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded one of the Kindred combined cases for further consideration to examine whether a power of attorney contract was broad enough to allow the attorney to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a nursing home resident.

On remand, the Kentucky Supreme Court stuck to its view that the power of attorney didn’t allow the attorney to make the arbitration agreement, and it upheld its original determination striking arbitration. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Wellner, No. 2013-SC-000431-I (Ky. S.Ct. corrected Nov. 22, 2017) (available at http://bit.ly/2Q3k18A)).

In its first week of the current term last October, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the nursing home’s request to review the case, so it won’t be heard in Washington a second time. That leaves a narrow standard related to powers of attorney that could void an arbitration agreement in Kentucky.

But the broader Snyder decision went directly against the Kindred holding, as well as last year’s Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (available at http://bit.ly/2Y66dwK), which permitted mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.  Snyder therefore was likely to constitute the start of another counterattack on the Kentucky Supreme Court’s arbitration agreement jurisprudence.

Instead, the Kentucky legislature decided to take the matter into its own hands.  The new law now ensures that Snyder is nothing more than a one-off.

* * *

The author was a CPR Institute Spring 2019 intern. 

 

“Arbitration in America” – A Summary of the Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Echo K.X. Wang 

An April 2 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “Arbitration in America,” chaired by North Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, examined the values of the practice, focusing on mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.

The Senate is closely divided on the subject. Democrats have pushed strongly against mandatory arbitration clauses in reaction to Supreme Court decisions. In the past two months, several bills limiting or eliminating mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts have been introduced.

In February, Rep. Hank Johnson, D., Ga., joined Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D., Conn., to introduce the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act–the FAIR Act–in the House (H.R. 1423), which would “prohibit predispute arbitration agreements that force arbitration of future employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights dispute.” (Text and information can be found at https://bit.ly/2UTQoeO.)

More recently, on April 10, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D. Ohio, introduced another bill, Arbitration Fairness for Consumers Act (S. 630), which would restrict mandatory arbitration and class action waivers in contracts that relate to a “consumer financial product or service.” (S.630 can be found at https://bit.ly/2UvCuQs).

The bill would reverse last fall’s vote by the Senate to overturn Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules that barred mandatory pre-dispute arbitration combined with class processes in litigation and arbitration in consumer financial services contracts. The CFPB rule, which had been in the works for more than four years, was rescinded by a 51-50 Senate vote, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the deciding vote.

For more details on these bills and more, see Vincent Sauvet, New Push Coming for Familiar Arbitration Bills? CPR Speaks blog (April 3) (available at https://bit.ly/2UynZeJ).

While the proposals are facing pushbacks from Republicans and business owners, the committee meeting provided a venue for the two sides to engage in discussions. Most important, the fact that Sen. Graham organized and led this meeting signals that there is a bipartisan opening for negotiation on arbitration reform.

In his initial statement, Graham noted that while arbitration has a place in society, everything good for business is not necessarily best for society. The hearing, he said, therefore sought to address the applicability of arbitration where it conflicts with social issues, in matters including sexual harassment and employment disputes.

Sen. Blumenthal followed, noting that “a right without remedy is [a] dead letter.” Throughout the meeting, Chairman Graham repeatedly stated he wanted to find a “middle-ground” solution to allow businesses to thrive while at the same time provide consumer protection.

But during the two-hour hearing, the divergent views clashed more than they found common ground. The Judiciary Committee listened to testimony from a small business owner, a Navy Reservist, practitioners on both sides, and business owners, all focusing on whether there should be a limit or bar to the use of “forced” arbitration agreements.

The hearing participants discussed the degree to which mandatory arbitration harms consumers, the effects of class-action waivers, and the way that businesses can be affected by mandatory arbitrations.

Sens. Graham and Blumenthal, as well as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D., Calif., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D., R.I., spoke in favor of establishing limits to the arbitration use.

Kevin Ziober, a Newport Beach, Calif., Navy reservist and federal employee, spoke about his experience in which he was forced to arbitrate an employment dispute. Ziober worked as a federal employee for six months when he signed a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition to keep his job.

When Ziober left his job to join the Navy Reserve, he was fired from his position on the last day of work. As a result, he was forced to arbitrate his rights under the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act. Ziober argued that “no Americans should be denied the choice to enforce their rights.”

In response to a question from Sen. Joni Ernst, R. Iowa, on the impact of being forced into arbitration, Ziober described the anxiety and hardship he faced after being fired, knowing that he would not have a job after serving in the military. Ziober advocated that “an option to go to court should be something all servicemen be allowed.”

Prof. Myriam Gilles, a professor at New York’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, argued that when the Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in 1925, Congress intended to help ensure businesses so that their “agreements to arbitrate with each other can be enforced.” But, she said, the FAA was never meant to be applied to massive employment arbitrations that strip away individuals’ rights under state and federal law, providing a litigation shield for companies. Nor was it meant to be used in take-it-or-leave-it boilerplate agreements against individuals with no bargaining power, according to Gilles.

In response to a question from Sen. Graham, Gilles clarified that she does not wish to “do away” with arbitration. “We only want to get rid of arbitration clauses that are forced upon consumers and employees who have no choice,” she said.

Prof. Gilles also spoke extensively against class action bans, noting that it is often too expensive and time intensive for each individual to arbitrate their cases alone. As a result, forced arbitration provisions are shielding companies from liability, she said.

Alan Carlson, an owner and chef of Italian Colors Restaurant in Oakland, Calif., described his experiences with arbitration clauses as a small business owner. Carlson said he was forced to arbitrate a claim with the credit card company American Express, which took more than 10 years to conclude, and included a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court that sent him to arbitration. (See American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 559 U.S. 1103 (2010) (available at http://bit.ly/2Zb41FD).)

He said he was “shocked” when he learned that the documents he signed included a mandatory arbitration clause. He noted that small businesses like his have no bargaining power to negotiate contracts with credit card companies, while big companies like Walgreens and Safeway have the power to negotiate and remove mandatory arbitration clauses in their contracts with those same companies.

Carlson stated that “small businesses do not get their day in court because they have no power,” and that it is impossible for small businesses to hold large corporations accountable for their actions.

Carlson’s statement evoked strong empathy in Sen. Blumenthal, who echoed the unfairness that the big companies had their day in court, but Carlson was denied his. In response to questions from Blumenthal and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D., Minn., Carlson stated that mandatory arbitration handcuffs and prevents small businesses from “getting a fair shot of leveling the playing field.” In addition, Carlson stated that the companies often don’t give contracting parties enough time to get through all the fine print “unless you have an attorney on hand.”

  1. Paul Bland, Jr., executive director of Washington,, D.C., public interest law firm Public Justice, argued that forced arbitration clauses are “rigged and unfair.” He notes that it is getting harder to challenge arbitration clauses, and the clauses are often written to the disadvantage of consumers.

As examples, Bland cited to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report that suggests even when a person is directed to read an arbitration provision, only 9% of the people knew it means they cannot go to court.

Furthermore, Bland cited an instance where a rape victim was forced to arbitrate, and was given a choice to select from a list of arbitrators. But, explained Bland, all of the arbitrators were defense attorneys that he said presumptively are pro-corporations.

Previous witnesses Kevin Ziober and Alan Carlson affirmed this point, stating that neither of them had a choice in selecting their arbitrators. Chairman Lindsey Graham expressed concern about this practice, and stated that he will look into the issue.

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker spoke passionately against arbitration provisions, arguing that it unfairly stacks the deck against consumers and impedes individuals’ ability to seek redress. Citing a study suggesting that big corporations win 98% of arbitrations, Booker exclaimed, “This is not justice. This is not equal justice. This is corporate favoritism.”

Finally, Sen. Dick Durbin, D. Ill., suggested that mandatory arbitration clauses should be barred from student agreements to attend for-profit college, especially those that guarantee job placement. He said that in these situations, the arbitration clauses especially harm middle-income people.

Durbin noted that that if a student starts with a busboy job, goes to a for-profit school paying tens of thousands of dollars yet still comes out a bus boy, the school considers that a “placement” and can’t be sued for misrepresentation.

Arbitration proponents then had a chance to fire back, demanding that consumer arbitrations be allowed to continue.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R., Iowa, advocated to have more transparency in arbitration clauses to help bring accountability. He said that “consumers should know what they are agreeing to.” He raised the concern that banning mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses may impose extraordinary costs to corporations, which may in turn result in the costs being passed down to consumers.

Alan Kaplinsky, a partner at Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia and longtime business arbitration advocate, argued that arbitration under the FAA is important for companies. He said that the arbitration system is dynamic, and most of the times it works for both companies and individual consumers. He also rejected the argument that arbitration provisions offer no choices for consumers.

When questioned by Sen. Grassley about best practices to enforce transparency in arbitration clauses, Kaplinsky noted that it is important to draft arbitration agreements to “create fundamental fairness, give the consumer or employee the right to reject or opt out of the arbitration within some reasonable period of time.” He notes that these are not practices “required” under existing arbitration rules such as those issued by providers like the American Arbitration Association and JAMs.

Kaplinsky agreed with Sen. Grassley’s point that banning arbitration would create billions of dollars in costs for corporations, in addition to costs in defending against potential influxes of class action suits.

Victor E. Schwartz, a co-chair at the Public Policy Practice Group of Shook, Hardy, & Bacon, and a well-known as a Washington tort reform advocate and a supporter of class-action restrictions, also argued for consumer arbitration. He said that arbitration is generally a cheaper and faster alternative to litigation.

Schwartz also argued that consumers have the duty to read contracts and agreements, even if the clause is buried within the agreement. He rejected the view that consumers lack choice, noting that consumers enter binding arbitrations willingly. “You can choose to go to an employment office that does not require you to sign binding arbitration,” he said.

In addressing the argument that mandatory class action waivers harm the ability to address smaller claims, Schwartz countered that most employees are not eligible for class action anyway, given that the cases are usually factually different, and therefore class action is not a viable alternative.

Finally, Schwartz criticized plaintiffs’ attorneys, noting that since they usually are not paid by the hour, they are unlikely to accept litigation cases to represent employees in small claims cases. Thus, he said, in cases involving claims of $20,000-$30,000, arbitration is likely the only way for employees to get their claims addressed.

* * *

To read further about this committee meeting from a different perspective, see Ellis Kim, “Arbitration Gets the Spotlight at Senate Judiciary Hearing,” Law.com (April 2) (available at https://bit.ly/2Ug7KxU).

A video of the hearing, as well as transcripts of the individuals’ remarks, is available from the Senate Judiciary Committee here: http://bit.ly/2KBiB6c.

* * *

The author is a Spring 2019 CPR Institute intern, and a student at Brooklyn Law School.

 

Prospective Higher Education Reform to Ban Arbitration of Student Claims

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Vincent Sauvet

Another legislative proposal that would curtail arbitration was introduced in Congress on March 26.

The PROTECT Students Act of 2019 (S.867) was introduced on the Senate floor by New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan. The bill, a general higher education reform which includes provisions related to institutions oversight and accountability, student loans and healthcare, would ban arbitration of claims brought by students against their institutions.

This follows up on CPR Speaks’ recent post on recent legislative efforts by congressional Democrats to limit the use of arbitration in various kind of disputes. See “New Push Coming for Familiar Arbitration Bills?” (April 3).

The text of Hassan’s bill would create add an exception to the enforcement of Chapter 1 of U.S. Code Title 9—the Federal Arbitration Act. It would bar enforcement of arbitration agreements in an enrollment agreement made between a student and an institution of higher education.

Combined with a prohibition for the institution to require a student to agree to, and enforce “any limitation or restriction on the ability of a student to pursue a claim, individually or with others, against an institution in court,” the provision would effectively ban even the possibility of arbitration of a claim a student may have against their institution.

Although the PROTECT Act is not really focused on arbitration—the name is an acronym for “Preventing Risky Operations from Threatening the Education and Career Trajectories of Students Act of 2019–it nevertheless includes provisions that can be found in other bills specifically targeting arbitration.

In fact, similar provisions are the entire point of the closely related Court Legal Access and Student Support (CLASS) Act of 2019.  The bill, introduced on Feb. 28 as S.608 by Sen. Richard Durbin, D., Ill., and as H.R. 1430 in the House by Rep. Maxine Waters, D., Cal., was part of a flurry of arbitration bills spearheaded by the FAIR Act of 2019, discussed in the previous CPR Speaks post.

Both the PROTECT and CLASS acts have been referred to committees and await further action.

While all of these bills face a tough climb to passage, the inclusion of such provisions in sector- specific reform bills could contribute to a “normalization” of criticism of arbitration.

* * *

The author, an international LLM student at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, is a 2019 CPR Institute spring intern.

New Push Coming for Familiar Arbitration Bills?

/ CPR Staff / 1 Comment

By Vincent Sauvet

Democrats in Congress late last month announced their intention to focus their efforts on passing new legislation to ban mandatory arbitration in several types of disputes. A package of bills, some still awaiting introduction, would target the arbitration of employment, consumer, antitrust and civil rights disputes.

The bills are mostly updates of long-running efforts, some dating back to the 1990s, that seek to limit processes that interfere with consumers’ and workers’ abilities to file suits against product and service providers, and employers—especially those that targeted class actions.

Now, at least some of the bills appear to be gaining more publicity and increasing support in the wake of controversy over mandatory processes.

This legislative effort will be spearheaded by the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal, which its sponsors are referring to as the FAIR Act of 2019. It was announced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D., Conn., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D., Ga., both longtime opponents of mandatory arbitration, with the bill’s introduction on Feb. 28.

H.R.1423 and S.610 would “amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration.” The flagship of the current crop of proposals targeting arbitration, the bill is co-sponsored by 32 Senate Democrats along with independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.  The number of House Democrats co-sponsoring the legislation has risen to 171 in the month since it was introduced, from 147.

The FAIR Act would ban arbitration in employment, consumer and antitrust disputes, as well as in civil rights disputes. The bill is a rebranding of the previous Congress’s Arbitration Fairness Act of 2018, also by Blumenthal and Johnson, covering the same issues.

In conjunction with the broad FAIR Act, several bills tackling more specific issues have also been announced.

The first is the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act of 2019, sponsored by Rep. Cheri Bustos, D., Ill., a reintroduction of her bill from the previous session, which had been co-sponsored by Pramila Jayapal, D., Wash., and, on the Senate side, New York Democrat and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand.  Jayapal is co-sponsoring the new bill, along with—significantly–a New York Republican, Elise Stefanik.

The bill would ban mandatory arbitration of sex discrimination disputes by banning any predispute arbitration agreement between an employer and employee arising out of conduct that would form the basis of a claim based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although this would be subject to some limitations, the prohibition would not apply to arbitration provisions contained in a contract between an employer and a labor organization, or between labor organizations.

Another bill, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act, would go even further than ending the arbitration of sexual harassment claims. It would establish an outright ban of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts.

The bill was introduced in the previous 115th Congress, last October, by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D. N.Y., and Sen. Patty Murray, D., Wash., seeking to make illegal any predispute arbitration agreement when related to an employment dispute, which would include sexual harassment. It also would pose further restrictions on post-dispute arbitration agreements.

The proposal was an immediate Congressional reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (May 21, 2018), which it would have overturned. But the bill had trouble getting bipartisan support, and likely will suffer the same issues in the current Congress, where it has not yet been introduced.

A bill announced and introduced with the FAIR Act included the Arbitration Fairness for Consumers Act, S.630, sponsored by Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, which would tackle the specific issue of mandatory arbitration in financial adviser and broker contracts.

While Brown has focused primarily on student loans and credit card agreements, the bill is in fact broader in scope.  It would prohibit any predispute arbitration agreement and joint-action waivers related to any consumer financial product or service dispute.

Another bill introduced with the FAIR Act, the Safety Over Arbitration Act would render void any predispute agreement compelling the arbitration of claims alleging facts relevant to a public health or safety hazard. The bill, S.620, was introduced by Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

As an interesting side note, the bill would also compel the arbitrator of such a claim to provide to the parties a written explanation of the factual and legal basis for his decision. While most arbitrators provide such explanation already, there is no legal requirement to do so.

Under the sponsorship of Sen. Patrick Leahy, D., Vt., the Restoring Statutory Rights and Interests of the State Act, S.635, was also reintroduced. The bill would prohibit any predispute arbitration agreement providing for the arbitration of claims brought by an individual or small business concern and arising from the alleged violation of a state or federal statutory or constitutional provision. The bill is nearly identical to its previous iterations, which were introduced but ultimately died in the 114th and 115th Congresses, and is most likely to suffer the same fate.

The Justice for Servicemembers Act also should be reintroduced soon by Reps. David Cicilline, D., R.I., and Connecticut’s Sen. Blumenthal. Like the versions in the previous three Congressional sessions, the bill aims to end the use of arbitration in cases under the Uniform Services Employment Rights Act.

Finally, the Fairness in Long-Term Care Arbitration Act was also announced by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D., Calif. While there is no text available yet, the bill would end the use of arbitration clauses in nursing home agreements.

These announced attempts at legislative change regarding arbitration use come up at a time when arbitration has suffered from bad press. The #MeToo movement made arbitration, which usually is conducted out of the public’s view, appear as a tool to silence victims. Although the broader controversy over mandatory arbitration in employment and labor disputes traditionally has been the legislative target of Democrats, the specific issue of sexual harassment moved the subject into broader view, drawing attention from a larger section of the political spectrum.

Still, the broader bills, such as the FAIR Act, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act and the Arbitration Fairness for Consumers Act are unlikely to gather enough support in order to pass in the current Congress. They will, for the most part, face the same Republican opposition that have defeated similar proposals.

But new, more-specific bills–those providing small incremental changes that exhibit more potential for bipartisan support–are more likely to succeed. Given the current political climate, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment stands a good chance of advancing. Several businesses such as Google, Microsoft, Uber and Lyft have effectively banned the arbitration of sexual harassment claims and sometimes other employment matters.

Though there are only three co-sponsors, the early appearance of a House Republican could indicate the bill’s broader appeal.

These moves, collectively, provide at least some momentum. “I’m encouraged that some of the leading companies are voluntarily changing their practices… but we can’t rely on everyone to do the right thing voluntarily” Sen. Blumenthal said.

* * *

The author, an international LLM student at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, is a 2019 CPR Institute spring intern.

International Commercial Mediation Update: UNCITRAL Finalizes Convention and Model Law Drafts on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation

/ CPR Staff / Leave a comment

By Erin Gleason Alvarez

erinEarlier this year, we reported on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group II’s progress towards finalizing a convention on the enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements resulting from mediation. On June 25, 2018, UNCITRAL finalized the draft Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, to be known as the Singapore Convention, as well as finalizing the draft Model Law.

By way of background, Working Group II was initiated by UNCITRAL in 2014 in order to explore whether it might be feasible to develop mechanisms for the enforcement of mediated agreements in international commercial disputes. The need for this Working Group grew out of concern that parties to mediated agreements may not be afforded the same protections as those available in international commercial arbitration.

The achievements of Working Group II were extolled at an UNCITRAL conference at the United Nations on June 27, held in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the New York Convention. Representatives from Israel and Australia, who participated in the Working Group, led a discussion on the drafting process. Consideration over an international mediation convention lasted nearly four years, and it seems that a few mediations took place in finalizing the documents.

The Convention and Model Law drafts outline the requirements for a settlement agreement, process for enforcing an agreement and grounds for refusing to grant relief.  The documents are seen as completing the ADR framework for international disputes.

States that have participated in this process include Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czechia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia, Nigeria, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). The session was also attended by observers from Algeria, Belgium, Benin, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Finland, Iraq, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic and Viet Nam, in addition to observers from the European Union and the Holy See.

From here the Convention and Model Law must be approved by the General Assembly, which will likely happen later this year. In August 2019, a signing ceremony will be held for the Convention in Singapore and thus the Convention will be known as the “Singapore Convention.”

At the June 27 United Nations event, hope was expressed that the Singapore Convention would do for mediation what the New York Convention has done for arbitration.

 

Erin Gleason Alvarez serves as mediator and arbitrator in commercial and insurance disputes.  She is a member of the CPR Institute Panel of Distinguished Neutrals and co-chairs the CPR Institute Mediation Committee.  Erin may be reached at erin@gleasonadr.com.