Nor did the Tribunal find that the agreement was not limited to events that occurred after the signing of the agreement, but was retroactive. Nor did the court admire Western Directory`s attempt to use the agreement as a means of forcing LeLouis to waive congressional rights – such as the right to a jury trial in a Title VII trial – or that the agreement imposed a one-year prescribed statute of limitations, whereas current state and federal laws provided for a longer term. The court was also “concerned” that the agreement was not reached on the question of whether the arbitrator would have the power to award the full arsenal of remedies, such as punitive damages, the extent of the discovery, and whether the arbitrator would be required to make a written decision establishing the reasons for the award. The court found it troubling to trust such issues – which would very well determine the extent to which LeLouis might justify their rights – to the mood of “the special organization that conducts arbitration.” Q: Can I require mandatory conciliation as a precondition for hiring a new employee? In Ingle, a California district court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement, and Circuit City appealed to the Ninth Circuit. However, in Mantor, a California district court granted Circuit City`s request to force arbitration – so the former employee appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Employers just love arbitration. Well, maybe not self-conciliation- but at least arbitration agreements. And what is not to love. Conciliation, at least in theory, tightens dispute resolution procedures and allows parties to hear and resolve a case more quickly than the courts. The factual rules are generally more relaxed within the jurisdiction than in the court. And because arbitration generally resolves disputes faster than legal action, legal fees are likely to be lower.
The Ninth Circuit found that Circuit City`s arbitration agreements were procedurally and materially unacceptable. In other words, the court found that the way the treaties were negotiated was oppressive and that the terms of the agreement were so unilateral that they “shocked the conscience”. In particular, the ingle court took the following factors related to the arbitration agreement in this case: Despite the fact that many cases happen similar to Hatkoff and the Arbitration Agreements Act is generally favourable to employers, the applicability of such agreements is regularly pursued in employment cases. For this reason, and also because the unscrupulous analysis is very factual and the result can be very different in all cases, arbitration continues to be a “hot” and fluid area of labor law both in Oregon and across the country.