California Arbitration Law Developments: Key Cases and Updates

A company can make an arbitration outcome public. Nobody's stopping them. That's the part people miss when they say arbitration is built to hide things. It's not the process hiding anything. It's the choice a company makes with it. Bad actor's still a bad actor either way. No clause changes that.

“Does arbitration let companies hide bad behavior? Our CEO put that question to three general counsel a while back, and their answers cut through a lot of the noise around forced arbitration. That debate hasn’t cooled off. Congress is still fighting over the FAIR Act. Courts are still split on how far the 2022 sexual-harassment carve-out should reach into the rest of an arbitration agreement. So it felt worth surfacing this conversation again. Their answer, in short: the clause isn’t the problem. What a company does with the confidentiality it provides is. Read the full piece https://lnkd.in/giinsXz4

ICYMI, as of today the Douglas factors are no longer required in penalty justifications before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Check out Federal Employment Law Training Group's recent article on the topic. https://lnkd.in/gw-MJeET

So, What's the Legal Dilemma? The Jurisprudential Battle in Chen v. New York Jets Following my newsletter article yesterday, I am diving straight into a major procedural dilemma currently sitting before the New Jersey Appellate Division. This landmark case highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between statutory interpretations and contract enforcement. The Core Conflict- The Jets' former VP of Finance, filed suit alleging retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) following her cooperation with an internal corporate investigation. The Jets countersued for breach of contract and sought to enforce the mandatory arbitration clause within her employment agreement. The lower court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) applies to this dispute. The Jets appealed. The Jurisprudential Dilemma- The Appellate Division faces two valid, competing legal doctrines: 01. The Argument for Contract Enforcement (Arbitration): Overturning the lower court's ruling respects basic contract law. It ensures that the specific dispute resolution path originally agreed upon in the employment contract remains predictable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). 02. The Argument for Employee Protection (The EFAA): Upholding the lower court's ruling applies federal statutory protections to whistleblowers. However, expanding these rules to cover secondary retaliation claims could make standard corporate agreements less predictable. No matter which path the Appellate Division chooses, the ruling will profoundly shape the future boundaries of corporate compliance, contract drafting, and arbitration enforcement. Want to read my full breakdown and future legal forecasts? Check out the latest edition of the newsletter via the link in the comments below! Please like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on high-stakes Labor and Employment Disputes & Grievances, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and contract law developments. #Arbitration #ContractLaw #Retaliation #NeutralEvaluator #EmergingArbitrator #EFAA #EmploymentLaw

From legal technology and equal pay to family law and corporate transactions, Birketts experts have been sharing their insights across a range of national and sector media outlets this week. Here's a look at this week's coverage: Rhodri Preece discusses taking on a lease in the hospitality sector in CLH News: 🔗 https://lnkd.in/etWcaQkE Laura Wood highlights how tech is transforming legal practice far beyond simple efficiency gains in Journal, Law Society of Scotland 🔗 https://lnkd.in/eKa3xPYh Daniella Colton explains why the Next equal pay case decision matters for employers in Employee Benefits: 🔗 https://lnkd.in/eq26kjvX Sebastian Burrows comments on the spike in the number of Specific Issue Orders, asking the courts to decide single points that parents cannot agree on, in Today's Family Lawyer: 🔗 https://lnkd.in/es_TmQEg Jessica Caws and Cheryl Tham outline what FCA Code Reforms May Mean For Solo-Regulated Firms in Law360 UK: 🔗 https://lnkd.in/eXRdhBbR Seamus Clifford comments on a corporate deal in Insider Media: 🔗https://lnkd.in/erSnWEKC #BirkettsInThePress #MediaCoverage #WeeklyRoundUp

Interpretation of Statutes: Meaning, Types, Rules and Doctrines Interpretation of statutes is the process by which courts determine the true meaning of words, phrases and provisions in a law so that it can be applied fairly and correctly. In simple terms, it is the method courts use to understand what the legislature intended and how the law should work in real situations. Example: A law says “No vehicles are allowed in the public park.” Does “vehicles” include bicycles or electric scooters? The court interprets the word to decide. Why Interpretation Is Necessary Laws cannot cover every situation. Language can be unclear and society keeps changing. Courts therefore need rules of interpretation to: • Give clear meaning to unclear words • Avoid unfair or absurd results • Protect the purpose of the law • Maintain consistency and fairness Main Types of Interpretation 1. Literal Rule Words are given their ordinary and grammatical meaning. Simple idea: Read the law as it is written. Example: No entry after 10 p.m. clearly prohibits entry at 11 p.m. 2. Golden Rule Ordinary meaning is modified if it produces an absurd or unreasonable result. Simple idea: Follow the plain meaning, but correct it if the outcome is ridiculous. 3. Mischief Rule The court looks at the problem (mischief) the law was meant to remedy and interprets it to suppress that problem. Simple idea: Focus on the defect the law was designed to cure. 4. Purposive Interpretation The court interprets the law in a way that advances its overall purpose and object. Simple idea: Ask what the law was trying to achieve and interpret it accordingly. 5. Harmonious Construction Conflicting provisions are read together so that both can operate as far as possible. Simple idea: Reconcile the parts instead of letting one defeat the other. 6. Beneficial Interpretation Where language is ambiguous, the interpretation favourable to the protected class (workers, consumers, etc.) is preferred. Simple idea: Give the benefit of doubt to those the law intends to protect. 7. Strict Interpretation Penal and taxing laws are interpreted strictly according to their exact words. Simple idea: No punishment or tax unless the law clearly covers the situation. Important Supporting Rules & Doctrines • Ejusdem Generis – General words following specific words of the same class are limited to that class. Example: “Cars, buses, trucks and other vehicles” usually means similar road vehicles. • Casus Omissus – Courts cannot fill gaps left by the legislature. Example: A benefit given only to “employees” cannot be extended to independent contractors. • Prospective Overruling – When a court overrules an earlier decision, it may apply the new rule only to future cases to avoid disrupting past transactions. Interpretation of statutes enables courts to clarify laws and apply them justly by choosing the approach that best reflects the legislature’s true intention.

AG Szpunar published his opinion in C‑347/25, Zapp today. Bottom line, he proposes that the ECJ should interpret Art 101 TFEU as to preclude a clawback of fines imposed on an undertaking from members of its management board. Surely, the competition law community will have much more to discuss. Here is me: A lot has and will be said about how permitting / denying a clawback of fines (dis)incentivizes infringements of Art 101 TFEU and the role these structures play in safeguarding the effectiveness on competition law. The way I would understand the opinion in Zapp at a high level is that AG Szpunar proposes one possible distribution of risk(s of cartel infringements) between capital and labor. With its focus on the "undertaking" AG Szpunar locates Art 101 TFEU as a norm that allocates risk to capital and away from labor. This shifts the focus on who represents "capital". Of course, this depends on the specific corporate structure. It could be shareholders themselves, it could also be supervisory board members (Aufsichtsrat). Notice that in the context of the Zapp-case, AG Szpunar's opinion only refers to "members of [the] management body". It leaves doctrinally open if Art 101 TFEU also precludes a clawback against representatives of capital (under the hypothetical that a competition law infringement may be attributable to them, e.g., by lack of supervision of the management board). Ultimately, I think such cases will be rare, but the issue has not been settled. Lastly, if one looks into the way supervisory boards are composed, in several jurisdictions, they include not just representatives of capital, but in larger companies also labor representatives - at present, their liability mirrors that of capital representatives. My academic teacher Martin Schauer and I had recently exchanged ideas about these themes in the context of updating his authoritative chapter on liability of supervisory members - can labor representatives be held liable for cartel fines (under the hypothetical that a competition law infringement may be attributable to them, e.g., by lack of supervision of the management board)? I think, the Zapp-case gives further food for thought on which type of supervisory member, may be held liable for what.

AB 2155 Ends California’s Arbitration Fallback for Drivers and Warehouse Workers: California's AB 2155 removes the state-law fallback that let employers arbitrate with FAA-exempt drivers and warehouse workers. What changes on January 1, 2027. The post AB 2155 Ends California’s Arbitration Fallback for Drivers and Warehouse Workers appeared first on North Star Law Firm.

BigLaw compensation keeps climbing — but so does the competition for the top lawyers. The ABA Journal’s latest look at lawyer pay highlights just how intense the competition for talent has become. For law firms, compensation is increasingly a recruiting tool. But money alone does not guarantee a successful lateral strategy. The firms winning the talent war are pairing competitive economics with something harder to replicate: platform, opportunity, integration and a credible path to growth. And for partners considering a move, the question isn’t simply, “Will I make more?” it is “Can I build more here?” compared to my current platform. #BigLaw #LateralPartners #LegalRecruiting #LawFirmStrategy #amlaw100 #AmLaw200 #Lateralintegration https://okt.to/QgENlb

Understanding contract law helps you know what you are agreeing to. 📄 Whether you are signing for goods, services, employment, property, or a business arrangement, knowing the basic principles of contract law can help you identify your rights, responsibilities, and potential risks before problems arise. #HalsburyChambers #ContractLaw #LegalInsight #TheBahamas