Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fallacy Of Duffield V. Robertson And Rosenberg V. Merrill Lynch: The Continuing Viability Of Mandatory Pre-Dispute Title Vii Arbitration Agreements In The Post-Civil Rights Act Of 1991 Era, The, Kristen Decker, William Krizner
Fallacy Of Duffield V. Robertson And Rosenberg V. Merrill Lynch: The Continuing Viability Of Mandatory Pre-Dispute Title Vii Arbitration Agreements In The Post-Civil Rights Act Of 1991 Era, The, Kristen Decker, William Krizner
Journal of Dispute Resolution
Two recent decisions, one in the Ninth Circuit and one in a Massachusetts District Court, have erroneously held that mandatory Title VII pre-dispute arbitration clauses are unenforceable under the Civil Rights Act of 1991.' A statutory construction analysis of the 1991 Civil Rights Act demonstrates that Congress did not intend to abolish the use of such clauses. Instead, Congress intended to support the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration as a valid and useful forum for the resolution of disputes arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The purpose of the following Article is twofold. First, this …
Arbitration Agreements: Should A Union Be Allowed To Make Collective Bargaining Agreements That Bind Individuals' Federal Statutory Claims To Arbitration - Brisentine V. Stone & (And) Webster Engineering Corp., Troy Groat
Journal of Dispute Resolution
With the constant increase of employment litigation2 among individuals, unions and companies, the use of arbitration clauses continues to grow each day. While it is clear that arbitration clauses can be beneficial, it is not clear when and in what situations they should be binding, and hence, waive the rights of parties to have their day in court. Against this backdrop, the Brisentine court faced the issue of whether a union, when making a collective bargaining agreement, can bind individual employee's federal statutory rights to arbitration