Highlighting this quarter’s column are three cases that address three very different, but interesting issues. The first case underscores the importance of careful crafting of arbitration agreements. The second case concerns whether an elected official, and in particular, a school board member, has a property interest in her elected seat. The final case showcases the pitfall of eleventh-hour motions in cases involving a history of discovery disputes.
Question of Arbitration
With the popularity of arbitration agreements on the rise, parties who enter into such agreements should be aware of the potential impact that any exclusionary language has on the enforceability of such provisions. In Bakery Confectionery Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local 116, AFL-CIO (the union) v. Wegmans, Civ. No. 13-CV-6578, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 168165 (Dec. 4, 2014), Senior Judge David G. Larimer determined that in an action brought under §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act,1 the union could not compel arbitration over the discharge of an employee for theft of a key and key chain.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
