1 / 26

ARBITRATION CLASS 3

ARBITRATION CLASS 3. SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 LIMITS OF ARBITRATION EVIDENCE. THE EFFECT OF GARDNER-DENVER. GARDNER DENVER ALLOWS A UNION EMPLOYEE TO GO INTO COURT EVEN THOUGH THEY GRIEVED EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION THROUGH A LABOR AGREEMENT

LionelDale
Download Presentation

ARBITRATION CLASS 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ARBITRATION CLASS 3 SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 LIMITS OF ARBITRATION EVIDENCE U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  2. THE EFFECT OF GARDNER-DENVER • GARDNER DENVER ALLOWS A UNION EMPLOYEE TO GO INTO COURT EVEN THOUGH THEY GRIEVED EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION THROUGH A LABOR AGREEMENT • DISTINGUISHED BY NOTING THAT A LABOR ARBITRATOR IS LIMITED TO THE LABOR CONTRACT AND DOES NOT ENFORCE THE LAW • ALSO THERE IS A CONCERN IN LABOR ARBITRATION THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL WILL BE SUBORDINATED TO THE RIGHTS OF THE LARGER BARGAINING UNIT U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  3. RECONCILING GILMER WITH GARNER-DENVER • WHAT IS BEING WAIVED • WHO IS WAIVING IT • THE SUPREME COURT IN WRIGHT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF WAIVER AND SAID THAT FOR A WAIVER OF STATUTORY RIGHTS TO BE EFFECTIVE, IT MUST BE “CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE” AND THAT THE WAIVER MUST BE “PARTICULARLY CLEAR” U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  4. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 279 F.3d 889 (2002) U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  5. THE 9TH CIRCUIT DECISION • ON REMAND FROM A SHARPLY DIVIDED SUPREME COURT • EARLIER DECISION OF THE 9TH CIRCUIT WAS THAT THE FAA DID NOT APPLY TO THIS SITUATION, THE SUPREME COURT DISAGREED U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  6. FACTS AND SETTING • ADAMS SIGNED AN AGREEMENT THAT ALL CLAIMS WOULD BE ARBITRATED • SEVERE LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES WERE IMPOSED • THE COST WERE SHARED UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WINS • UNDERLYING CLAIM WAS SEXUAL HARASSMENT U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  7. THE WAIVER CLAUSE AND CALIFORNIA LAW • THIS IS A CONTRACT OF ADHESION • STANDARD FORM • DRAFTED BY A PARTY WITH SUPERIOR BARGAINING POWER • PRESENTED ON A TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT BASIS U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  8. SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE • SINCE IT WAS ONE SIDED-IT DEALT WITH ONLY THE EMPLOYEES CLAIMS • SINCE IT EXCLUDED DAMAGES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  9. BUT WHAT ABOUT GILMER? • GILMER SAYS IN ARBITRATION YOU MUST BE ABLE TO PURSUE STATUTORY CLAIMS • THE COLE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET REGARDING • UNREASONABLE COSTS • DOES NOT PROVIDE THE TYPES OF RELIEF AVAILABLE IN COURT U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  10. EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE • 534 US 279 (2002) • JUSTICE STEVENS U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  11. FACTS AND SETTING • BAKER WORKED THE GRILL • HE HAD A SEIZURE • HE WAS FIRED • HE FILED WITH THE EEOC WHO PURSUED AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION • COMPANY FILED TO COMPEL ARBITRATION U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  12. THE CONTRACT TO ARBITRATE • ALL EMPLOYEES, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT WERE REQUIRED TO SIGN U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  13. THE ROLE OF THE EEOC • IT IS THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT • IT CONTROLS THE PROCESS • EMPLOYEE MAY INTERVENE ONLY • IT CAN SEEK A WIDE VARIETY OF DAMAGES • THE EEOC WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  14. HOLDING • THE COURT ENDORSES THE FAA AND ARBITRATION IN GENERAL • BUT THE COURT NOTES THAT THE FAA ENFORCES CONTRACTS AND THE EEOC WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  15. HOOTERS OF AMERICA V. PHILLIPS • THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS INVALID IN LIGHT OF PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS • THE PROCESS SEEMS DESIGNED TO HELP THE COMPANY PREPARE A DEFENSE • ENSURE A BIASED DECISION MAKER (THEY CONTROL THE LIST) • THE COMPANY CONTROLS WHICH ISSUES GO FORWARD • THE COMPANY ONLY CAN TRANSCRIBE • THE COMPANY ONLY CAN VACATE • THE COMPANY CAN CHANGE THE RULES AT ANY TIME U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  16. GETTING PRACTICAL EVIDENCE/OBJECTIONS U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

  17. THE MECHANICS OF MAKING OBJECTIONS • SIT DOWN! • DON’T MAKE A SPEAKING OBJECTION • STATE THE BASIS FOR YOUR OBJECTION FIRST • STATE YOUR ARGUMENT REGARDING THE OBJECTION SECOND • ADDRESS THE OBJECTION TO THE ARBITRATOR AND NOT YOUR OPPONENT U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 17

  18. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS • PARTY ADMISSIONS • PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION • EXCITED UTTERANCE • STATE OF MIND • STATEMENT MADE FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT • DYING DECLARATION U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 18

  19. HEARSAY OBJECTION IS RARELY SUSTAINED • GENERALLY IT WILL BE PERMITTED AND WILL BE GIVEN APPROPRIATE WEIGHT • WHEN THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED IT WILL BE BECAUSE • THE INFORMATION OFFERED IS REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO BEGIN WITH • THE HEARSAY IS FROM A WITNESS WOULD BE AVAILABLE • BECAUSE WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PROVED THROUGH THE HEARSAY IS SO CRITICAL TO THE CASE THAT THE ARBITRATOR FINDS THE TESTIMONY TOO UNRELIABLE U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 19

  20. STIPULATIONS • ARE PERMITTED AND OFTEN SHORTEN THE HEARING BY AVOIDING WITNESSES TESTIMONY TO INFORMATION WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE • BEWARE OF STIPULATIONS THAT CAN DISRUPT THE FLOW OF YOUR CASE U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 20

  21. JUDICIAL NOTICE • SAME RULES APPLY AS THEY DO IN COURT PROCEEDINGS U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 21

  22. INTRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AND TESTIMONY AND APPROPRIATE FOUNDATION U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 22

  23. FOUNDATION • PROVIDES THE ARBITRATOR WITH INFORMATION THAT THE EVIDENCE ABOUT TO BE RECEIVED IS: • RELEVANT • ADMISSIBLE • RELIABLE U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 23

  24. IF HARRY IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO SEEING THE CAR IN THE PARKING LOT • THAT HARRY CAN SEE • YOU MUST ESTABLISH THAT HARRY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE CAR IN THE PARKING LOT U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 24

  25. ANOTHER EXAMPLE: FOUNDATION FOR EVIDENCE REGARDING CONVERSATIONS • DATE • TIME • PLACE • WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 25

  26. FOUNDATION FOR DOCUMENTS • AUTHENTICATION THROUGH WITNESSES • TESTIMONY AS TO RECEIPT OF DOCUMENT—MAIL BOX RULES • ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS-NOT USUALLY A PROBLEM IN ARBITRATION U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO 26

More Related