Arbitration class 3 l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 26

ARBITRATION CLASS 3 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


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

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Arbitration class 3 l.jpg

ARBITRATION CLASS 3

SEPTEMBER 3, 2008

LIMITS OF ARBITRATION

EVIDENCE

U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO


The effect of gardner denver l.jpg

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


Reconciling gilmer with garner denver l.jpg

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


Circuit city stores inc v adams 279 f 3d 889 2002 l.jpg

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 279 F.3d 889 (2002)

U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO


The 9 th circuit decision l.jpg

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


Facts and setting l.jpg

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


The waiver clause and california law l.jpg

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


Substantively unconscionable l.jpg

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


But what about gilmer l.jpg

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


Eeoc v waffle house l.jpg

EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE

  • 534 US 279 (2002)

  • JUSTICE STEVENS

U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO


Facts and setting11 l.jpg

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


The contract to arbitrate l.jpg

THE CONTRACT TO ARBITRATE

  • ALL EMPLOYEES, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT WERE REQUIRED TO SIGN

U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO


The role of the eeoc l.jpg

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


Holding l.jpg

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


Hooters of america v phillips l.jpg

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


Getting practical l.jpg

GETTING PRACTICAL

EVIDENCE/OBJECTIONS

U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO


The mechanics of making objections l.jpg

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


Hearsay exceptions l.jpg

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


Hearsay l.jpg

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


Stipulations l.jpg

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


Judicial notice l.jpg

JUDICIAL NOTICE

  • SAME RULES APPLY AS THEY DO IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

21


Introduction of exhibits and testimony and appropriate foundation l.jpg

INTRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AND TESTIMONY AND APPROPRIATE FOUNDATION

U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

22


Foundation l.jpg

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


If harry is going to testify to seeing the car in the parking lot l.jpg

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


Another example foundation for evidence regarding conversations l.jpg

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: FOUNDATION FOR EVIDENCE REGARDING CONVERSATIONS

  • DATE

  • TIME

  • PLACE

  • WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT

U OF O LAW SCHOOL--MIKE TEDESCO

25


Foundation for documents l.jpg

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


  • Login