Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Tommy Coleman and Jason Perkins, who worked as oil and gas pipeline inspectors for System One Holdings, LLC, were paid a flat daily rate without overtime compensation, even when working over forty hours a week. They filed a lawsuit claiming this violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and sought unpaid overtime on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly compensated inspectors.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania reviewed the case. System One moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, arguing that the plaintiffs had signed arbitration agreements enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The plaintiffs countered that they fell under the transportation workers' exemption to the FAA. The District Court, following the precedent set in Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., ordered limited discovery into the arbitrability of the claims before deciding on the motion to compel arbitration. System One's motion for reconsideration of this order was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case to determine if it had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal from the District Court's order. The Third Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the District Court's order did not formally deny the motion to compel arbitration but rather deferred its decision pending limited discovery. The court emphasized that the FAA permits appeals from specific types of orders, and the order in question did not fall within those categories. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Coleman v. System One Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (the union), and the School Committee of Boston (the committee). The union alleged that the committee failed to hire eighteen "cluster" paraprofessional substitutes as required by their collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator sustained the union's grievance in July 2020 and ordered the committee to comply with the hiring requirement. The committee did not seek to vacate or modify the award. Nineteen months later, the union sought judicial confirmation of the arbitration award, which the committee opposed, claiming substantial compliance.In the Superior Court, the union filed a complaint to confirm the arbitration award and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The committee responded with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Superior Court judge granted the committee's motion to dismiss and denied the union's motion, reasoning that there was no statutory right to confirmation when no dispute was alleged.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that under General Laws c. 150C, § 10, the Superior Court is required to confirm an arbitration award upon application by a party unless a timely motion to vacate or modify the award has been made. The court emphasized that the statute's language is clear and mandatory, stating that the Superior Court "shall" confirm the award if no such motion is pending. The court rejected the committee's argument that confirmation should be discretionary and noted that the purpose of § 10 is to enforce arbitration awards.The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Superior Court's order, granting the committee's motion to dismiss and denying the union's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court ordered that the arbitration award be confirmed. View "Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. School Committee of Boston" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Jose Emilio Ronderos, applied for a job with USF Reddaway, Inc. and Yellow Corporation (collectively, "Reddaway") and was required to sign an arbitration agreement as part of the application process. Ronderos later filed employment-related claims against Reddaway, alleging age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and other violations under California law. Ronderos claimed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, involved significant oppression, and contained a substantively opaque cost-splitting provision. The court also found that the agreement was substantively unconscionable due to its one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out, which unfairly favored Reddaway. The district court declined to sever the unconscionable provisions and enforce the remainder of the agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. It held that the agreement involved significant oppression and some surprise, making it procedurally unconscionable. The court also found that the one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out were substantively unconscionable. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable provisions and affirmed the denial of Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. View "Ronderos v. USF Reddaway, Inc." on Justia Law

Two employees, Tanika Parker and Andrew Farrier, participated in 401(k) plans managed by subsidiaries of Tenneco Inc. The plans were amended to include mandatory individual arbitration provisions, which required participants to arbitrate disputes individually and barred representative, class, or collective actions. Parker and Farrier alleged that the fiduciaries of their plans breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to prudently manage the plans, resulting in higher costs and reduced retirement savings. They sought plan-wide remedies, including restitution of losses and disgorgement of profits.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the fiduciaries' motion to compel individual arbitration. The court found that the arbitration provisions limited participants' substantive rights under ERISA by eliminating their ability to bring representative actions and seek plan-wide remedies, which are guaranteed by ERISA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the individual arbitration provisions were unenforceable because they acted as a prospective waiver of the participants' statutory rights and remedies under ERISA. The court emphasized that ERISA allows participants to sue on behalf of a plan and obtain plan-wide relief, and the arbitration provisions' restrictions on representative actions and plan-wide remedies violated these statutory rights. Consequently, the arbitration provisions were invalid, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Parker v. Tenneco, Inc." on Justia Law

John Smith, an employee of Sysco Indianapolis, LLC, did not receive a monthly benefit check he expected. His labor union, Teamsters Local 135, filed a grievance on his behalf, alleging that Sysco violated their 2018 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by not providing a $500 Supplemental Early Retirement Benefit (SERB) to certain retirees and employees. Sysco participated in the initial grievance process but refused to proceed to arbitration, arguing that the grievance was not arbitrable under the CBA. Sysco then sought a declaratory judgment from the district court, while the Union counterclaimed for a declaration that the grievance was arbitrable.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana sided with Sysco, finding that the monthly benefit was governed by terms outside the CBA and that the parties' bargaining history indicated they did not intend for the benefit to be arbitrable. The court granted Sysco's motion for summary judgment and denied the Union's counterclaims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reached a different conclusion. The appellate court found that Sysco failed to present the "most forceful evidence" required to exclude the monthly benefit from the arbitration provision in the CBA. The court noted that the grievance fell within the scope of the arbitration clause on its face and that the CBA did not explicitly exclude the SERB from arbitration. The court also found that the parties' bargaining history did not clearly demonstrate an intent to exclude the benefit from arbitration. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the grievance must be sent to arbitration. View "Sysco Indianapolis LLC v. Teamsters Local 135" on Justia Law

Loretta Marshall applied for a nursing job with Tidelands Health using their online application process. After failing a mandatory physical agility test, she was denied employment. Marshall then sued Tidelands, alleging that the physical agility test constituted prohibited discrimination. Tidelands moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Marshall had agreed to arbitration through the online application process. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Tidelands had not shown the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina reviewed the case. Initially, Tidelands argued that Marshall's 2016 arbitration agreement covered her 2020 application. The magistrate judge found that the 2016 agreement did not apply to future applications. Tidelands then argued that Marshall agreed to arbitration in 2020, but the magistrate judge found that Marshall was not required to scroll through the arbitration agreement in 2020 and was not on reasonable notice of the agreement. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge and denied Tidelands' motion to compel arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Tidelands failed to show that Marshall had reasonable notice of an offer to arbitrate in 2020. The court noted that Marshall was not required to scroll through the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration notice at the top of the webpage did not provide the actual terms of an agreement. Additionally, the court found that Marshall did not manifest her assent to the arbitration agreement by clicking the "submit" button, as it did not clearly indicate agreement to arbitration. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that no arbitration agreement was formed in 2020. View "Marshall v. Georgetown Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Patricia Olivieri, alleged that her employer, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and her manager, Neil Isler, subjected her to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Olivieri claimed that Isler sexually assaulted and harassed her, and that after she reported his behavior, she faced retaliation and continued harassment from Stifel and other defendants. Olivieri's allegations included inappropriate comments, physical contact, and retaliatory actions such as changes in her job responsibilities and work environment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in Olivieri's employment contract. However, after the enactment of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), Olivieri moved for reconsideration. The district court vacated its earlier decision, concluding that Olivieri's claims accrued after the EFAA's effective date, making her arbitration agreement voidable under the new law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the lower court, applying the continuing violation doctrine to determine that Olivieri's hostile work environment claims accrued after the EFAA's effective date of March 3, 2022. The court held that the EFAA applied to Olivieri's claims, rendering her arbitration agreement invalid and unenforceable. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc." on Justia Law

A member of the United Mine Workers of America arbitrated a dispute against Consol Energy, Inc. and won. The Union then sued to confirm the arbitration award, while Consol and its subsidiaries counterclaimed to vacate the award. The Union argued that the subsidiaries could not unilaterally reduce health benefits promised to miners for life, even if they no longer mined coal. Consol, which served as the health-plan administrator, had sent a letter indicating potential changes to benefits after the agreement expired, prompting the arbitration.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the Union’s claim for lack of standing, reasoning that the Union was not injured as Consol had not actually modified the benefits. The court also declined to vacate the arbitration award on the merits of the Subsidiaries’ counterclaim. Both parties appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Union’s claim did not fall under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, which only authorizes suits for actual violations of contracts, not anticipated future violations. Consequently, the Union’s claim was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Regarding the Subsidiaries’ counterclaim, the court determined that the Subsidiaries lacked standing as they were not named in the arbitration award and had not shown a concrete and imminent injury. The court vacated the district court’s orders on the Subsidiaries’ counterclaim and remanded it with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing.Thus, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Union’s claim and vacated and remanded the Subsidiaries’ counterclaim for dismissal due to lack of standing. View "International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Consol Energy Inc." on Justia Law

Brent Electric Company (Brent) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 584 (the Union) have had a long-standing relationship since 1996. In 2018, they entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that included an interest-arbitration clause allowing either party to unilaterally submit unresolved issues to arbitration if negotiations for a new CBA failed. In 2020, Brent terminated its authorization for the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) to negotiate on its behalf and later stopped contributing to the Union pension fund. The Union filed a grievance, and the Labor Management Committee ruled in favor of the Union. In 2021, Brent and the Union failed to negotiate a new CBA, leading the Union to unilaterally submit the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator imposed a new CBA, which included both mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed Brent’s complaint to vacate the arbitration award and granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment to enforce the award. The district court found that the interest-arbitration clause in the 2018 CBA was broad and unambiguous, covering all unresolved issues, including permissive subjects of bargaining. The court also rejected Brent’s argument that the arbitration award violated public policy or the Federal Arbitration Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the presumption of arbitrability applied because the interest-arbitration clause was validly formed and unambiguously covered both mandatory and permissive subjects of bargaining. The court rejected Brent’s argument that it had a statutory right to refuse the imposition of permissive subjects, noting that Brent had contractually agreed to the interest-arbitration clause. The court also found no violation of public policy, as the arbitration award did not include a self-perpetuating interest-arbitration clause. Finally, the court concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed its powers under the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Brent Electric Company v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers" on Justia Law

Henry Searcy, Jr. sought certification as an agent under the NFLPA’s 2012 Regulations Governing Contract Advisors but failed the required exam twice. After an arbitrator sided with the NFLPA, Searcy sued the NFLPA, its Executive Director, Prometric LLC, and Prometric’s Vice President and General Counsel. He alleged breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and sought vacatur of the arbitration award under the FAA.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against Prometric Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and against the NFLPA Defendants for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Prometric Defendants and instructed the District Court to reconsider its dismissal of claims against the NFLPA Defendants, specifically examining whether Section 301 of the LMRA preempted Searcy’s state law claims.Upon further review, the District Court concluded it had jurisdiction and dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Searcy appealed again. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District Court erred in finding subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the NFLPA Defendants. The court determined that Section 301 of the LMRA does not completely preempt Searcy’s state law claims, as these claims do not require interpretation of the NFL-NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on different grounds and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). View "Searcy v. Smith" on Justia Law