Supreme Court Will Decide Whether the Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration Automatically Stays Case
/
Supreme Court Will Decide Whether the Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration Automatically Stays Case.
Read More
Select a Category →
Select A Category
- Age Discrimination
- Arbitration
- COVID-19
- Disability Discrimination
- Employment Contracts
- FMLA
- HR Basics
- Legislation
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Overtime Claims
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Sex Harassment
- Verdicts and Settlements
- Video
- Whistleblowers
- Workplace Injuries
- Wrongful Discharge
What is Employment at Will?
/
Texas employment law attorney Chris McKinney discusses employment at will and wrongful termination in today's video.
Today’s video topic is what is employment at will and how will it affect my wrongful termination claim?
Read MoreA Victory for Workers—Bill Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Claims is Sent to President for Signing
/
Yesterday, the Senate passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (S. 2342).
Read MoreHow Do I Find An Employment Attorney?
/Texas employment law attorney Chris McKinney discusses finding and hiring an employment lawyer.
So you need to hire an employment lawyer but you don’t know how to get started? Then this video is for you. Hiring an employment attorney to guide you through an employment-related dispute can be challenging.
For this reason it is important that you do some research and get your own materials together before you start making calls. Employment lawyer Chris McKinney Explains.
California’s New “Ask For Arbitration - Go To Jail” Law Questioned By Court
/California employment lawyers are closely following what one commentator calls the new “Request Arbitration, Go to Jail” law.
Read MoreTexas Supreme Court On Arbitrability Of Class Claims
/Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court declining to compel arbitration of class claims under the parties' arbitration agreement. This dispute was not an employment case but the same reasoning should apply to attempts by employers to force employment-related class claims into arbitration.
Read MoreStudy Finds that Employee Noncompete Restrictions Are Becoming A Dangerous Norm
/A recent study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute found that between 28% to 46% of the private-sector workforce are required to sign noncompete agreements in order to keep their jobs. The study found that 49% of employers said they require at least some of their employees to sign noncompetes, while 31% reported that all of their employees were required to sign noncompetes…..
Read MoreMomentum Builds For Ending Forced Arbitration: House Votes The FAIR Act Out Of Committee
/
Taking a monumental step forward for workers, on Tuesday, September 10, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and approved (22-14) the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act (FAIR Act) (H.R. 1423). The House is expected to vote on the bill as soon as this week. Congress has never before voted on a comprehensive bill to end forced arbitration.
The FAIR Act would open the courthouse doors and restore workers' access to America's civil justice system. Among other things, the FAIR Act would make it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration on workers, unless the worker knowingly and voluntarily agrees to arbitration after a dispute arises or pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The FAIR Act bans arbitration in consumer, civil rights, employment, and antitrust disputes. The bill addresses many issues that are important in ensuring that workers are not bound by forced arbitration clauses.
New Arbitration Agreement Not Applicable to Previously-Filed Case
/Russell v. Citigroup, Inc. (6th Cir., April 4, 2014) In this case the company tried to retroactively apply a newly-signed arbitration agreement to a case after the case had already been filed. Not surprisingly, the court rejected this novel temporal approach:
From 2004 to 2009, Russell worked at Citicorp’s Florence, Kentucky call center. He had signed a standard contract to arbitrate any disputes with the company. The agreement covered individual claims but not class actions.
In 2012, Russell filed a class action against the company, claiming that the company did not pay employees for time spent logging into and out of their computers at the beginning and end of each workday. Citicorp did not seek arbitration.
In 2012, with the lawsuit still in progress, Russell applied to work again at Citicorp’s call center and was rehired. Citicorp had updated its arbitration contract to cover class claims as well as individual ones. Russell signed the new contract and began work in the call center. Russell did not consult with his lawyers before signing the new contract.About a month later, Citicorp’s outside attorneys learned that he had been rehired and sought to compel Russell to arbitrate the class action, which by then had begun discovery.
The district court held that the new arbitration agreement did not cover lawsuits commenced before the agreement was signed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Download the opinion here: Russell v. Citigroup, Inc.
