| Free Trial / Sign Up | Products / Prices / Samples | About Us / Contact | FAQs | Home |
|
Latest employment law cases Summaries and links to full text |
|
Emailed directly to you and online all the time |
| Newest Cases | Key Word Search | Law Firm Directory | Arbitrator Directory | Law School Directory | Legal Resources / Memos |
| Employment Law Memo |
| Arbitration Law Memo |
| NLRB Law Memo |
| Employment Low Blog |
| Arbitration Law Blog |
| Employment Law 101 |
| Articles |
| Supreme Court Cases |
| EEOC Info |
| NLRB Info |
|
|
9th Circuit approves compulsory Title VII arbitration; overrules Duffield (8-3).
EEOC v. Luce, Forward (9th Cir en banc
09/30/2003)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0057222p.pdf
In Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co, 144 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir 1998), the 9th Circuit held that - as to Title VII claims - the Civil Rights Act of 1991 precluded enforcement of arbitration agreements entered into as a condition of employment. All other federal circuit courts have reached the opposite conclusion. Duffield has now been overruled, 8-3.
The employer refused to employ Donald Scott Lagatree because he refused to sign an agreement to arbitrate all disputes arising from his employment. The EEOC sued the employer claiming retaliation in violation of Title VII and other statutes. Relying on Duffield, the trial court enjoined the employer from requiring applicants to agree to arbitrate Title VII claims and from enforcing existing agreements to arbitrate such claims. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed on the ground that Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001), implicitly overruled Duffield. In an en banc rehearing the 9th Circuit has now overruled Duffield on the ground that it was wrong. The court reversed the trial court's injunction, and also remanded the case for the trial court to address the EEOC's "novel theory" of retaliation advanced during oral argument.
Duffield was wrong in concluding that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 precluded compulsory arbitration. Arbitration is not inconsistent with the Act's purpose of expanding employee rights and increasing remedies, and is consistent with the Supreme Court's endorsement of arbitration and the view that arbitration affects only the choice of forum and does not affect substantive rights. The text of Section 118 of the 1991 Act does not present any ambiguity suggesting that it may be intended to preclude compulsory arbitration. Section 118 encourages the use of arbitration and contains no prohibitory language. Any contrary legislative history must be ignored because the text of Section 118 is unambiguous.
The DISSENT argued that "Congress did not intend that employers could compel employees to sign compulsory arbitration agreements, coercing employees to arbitrate any future Title VII claim as a condition of their employment."