U.S. Supreme Court,
Labor/Employment,
Constitutional Law,
California Supreme Court
Sep. 18, 2017
Collective bargaining squares off against arbitration
In its October term, the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit whether the collective bargaining provisions of NLRA prohibit enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act of an agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against employers on individual, as opposed to a collective, basis.
Brian S. Kabateck
Founding and Managing Partner
Kabateck LLP
Consumer rights
633 W. Fifth Street Suite 3200
Los Angeles , CA 90071
Phone: 213-217-5000
Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com
Brian represents plaintiffs in personal injury, mass torts litigation, class actions, insurance bad faith, insurance litigation and commercial contingency litigation. He is a former president of Consumer Attorneys of California.
Natalie S. Pang
Associate
Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Email: npang@glancylaw.com
Natalie has expertise in products liability, personal injury, mass tort actions and appellate practice cases.
Employers seeking to prevent employees from bringing class action lawsuits against them faced a setback when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in its August 2016 decision of Morris v. Ernst & Young that arbitration agreements requiring employees bringing claims against their employer do so in “separate proceedings” violated the National Labor Relations Act. In its October term, the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit the issues in
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In