The US IA Digest collects in one place important decisions on US international arbitration case law issued since January 1, 2016, compiled and organized into categories that are most relevant and useful to practitioners and other interested parties. The Digest will be updated on a rolling basis as new decisions are issued.
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. Court found that all claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to the agreement and that no useful purpose would be served by staying the proceedings.
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of Title VII claims. Court found that the parties entered a valid and enforceable agreement that delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court held that because the plaintiff did not specifically allege that the delegation clause was unconscionable, all questions of unconscionability should be delegated to the arbitrator in the first instance.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed claims related to fraud and data protection issues. Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the motion to compel was untimely, finding that plaintiff had not met its burden in proving defendant waived its right to arbitration. Court further rejected plaintiff’s contention that the claims were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
6th Circuit affirmed a district court’s vacatur of an arbitration award. Appellate court agreed with district court’s finding that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by issuing an award that required employer to rehire an employee with back pay. Arbitrator held that an employer had terminated a worker without just cause in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, ignoring a subsequent controlling agreement that gave employer authority to terminate the employee for any absence during a probationary period.
Court confirmed a FINRA arbitration award and denied a motion to dismiss the action seeking confirmation. Court ignored argument that the action to confirm the award was moot because the award had been paid, holding that prior compliance with an award is not a ground for refusal of confirmation.