<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Drew Capuder's Employment Law Blog &#187; Pending legislation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/index.php/category/pending-legislation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog</link>
	<description>By Drew M. Capuder, Capuder Fantasia PLLC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Arbitration Agreements in Union Contacts are Enforceable; US Supreme Court in Penn Plaza v. Pyett</title>
		<link>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2009/04/arbitration-agreements-in-union-contacts-are-enforceable-us-supreme-court-in-penn-plaza-v-pyett/</link>
		<comments>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2009/04/arbitration-agreements-in-union-contacts-are-enforceable-us-supreme-court-in-penn-plaza-v-pyett/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:14:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Drew Capuder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor Unions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Result for Employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2009/04/20/arbitration-agreements-in-union-contacts-are-enforceable-us-supreme-court-in-penn-plaza-v-pyett/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a test]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a title="US Supreme Court, home page, official site" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/"><img style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 25px; display: inline; border: 0pt none;" title="US Supreme Court, home page" src="http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/USSupremeCourtRightFountain.jpg" border="0" alt="USSupremeCourtRightFountain" width="244" height="184" align="right" /></a> 4/1/09: The <a title="United States Supreme Court. home page" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/">US Supreme Court</a> ruled that &#8220;pre-dispute arbitration agreements&#8221; in collective bargaining agreements (union contracts) are enforceable, in <em><a title="Penn Plaza PLLC v. Pyett, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009)" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-581.pdf">Penn Plaza PLLC v. Pyett</a></em>, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009) (5-4 decision).</p>
<p>This was an <a title="Age discrimination, Drew Capuder's Employment Law Blog" href="http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/category/age-discrimination-type-of-discrimination/" target="_blank">age discrimination</a> case under the <a title="Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 USC 621, full text on EEOC web site" href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/adea.html" target="_blank">Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967</a> (<a title="Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 USC 621, full text on EEOC web site" href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/adea.html">ADEA</a>). The plaintiff was a member of a union, and the collective bargaining agreement (union contract) required submitting age discrimination claims to binding <a title="Arbitration articles, Drew Capuder's employment law blog" href="http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/category/arbitration/" target="_blank">arbitration</a>.</p>
<p>The <a title="United States Supreme Court. home page" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/">US Supreme Court</a> had previously ruled, but not in a labor union setting, that arbitration agreements for <a title="Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 USC 621, full text on EEOC web site" href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/adea.html">ADEA</a> claims were enforceable under the <a title="Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC 1" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode09/usc_sec_09_00000003----000-.html">Federal Arbitration Act</a>, 9 U.S.C. § 1 <em>et seq.</em> (<em><a title="Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991)" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?vol=500&amp;page=20&amp;navby=case&amp;court=us&amp;SUBMIT_SUPREME4=Search">Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp</a></em>., 500 U.S. 20, 26-33 (1991)). So the real issue in <em>Penn Plaza</em> was whether there would be a different result because of the union contract setting and the <a title="National Labor Relations Act, 29 USC 151" href="http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/national_labor_relations_act.aspx">National Labor Relations Act</a>.</p>
<p><span id="more-112"></span>The Supreme Court in <em>Penn Plaza</em>, in a divided decision (5-4), held that the arbitration agreement contained in the union contract was enforceable.</p>
<p>The enforceability of arbitration agreements for employment disputes has been a political hot potato, and <a title="The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1020:">The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009</a> (H.R. 1020) was introduced in the US House on February 12, 2009. The bill has 36 co-sponsors, and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. If it passes, it would essentially overrule <em>Penn Plaza</em> and other cases which have held that employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are enforceable.</p>
<p>Prepared by <a title="Drew M. Capuder's bio page at Capuder Fantasia PLLC" href="http://www.capuderfantasia.com/capuder.html">Drew M. Capuder</a> (<a title="Contact information for Drew M. Capuder, and Capuder Fantasia PLLC" href="http://www.capuderfantasia.com/contactus.html">contact information</a>)</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2009/04/arbitration-agreements-in-union-contacts-are-enforceable-us-supreme-court-in-penn-plaza-v-pyett/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>West Virginia Legislature May Force Employers to Give Employees Access to Their Personnel Files</title>
		<link>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2009/03/west-virginia-legislature-may-force-employers-to-give-employees-access-to-their-personnel-files/</link>
		<comments>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2009/03/west-virginia-legislature-may-force-employers-to-give-employees-access-to-their-personnel-files/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:17:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Drew Capuder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pending legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WV Legislation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2009/04/19/west-virginia-legislature-may-force-employers-to-give-employees-access-to-their-personnel-files/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[3/10/09: In the West Virginia Legislature, HB 3032, introduced on March 10, 2009, would give employees the right to review their personnel files.  The legislation has not been passed, and in prior legislative sessions, essentially the same bill was introduced without having been passed. Many people have the incorrect understanding that, in West Virginia, an [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a title="West Virginia Legislature, home page" href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/"><img style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 25px; display: inline; border: 0pt none;" title="West Virginia Legislature, home page" src="http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/WVLegislature.jpg" border="0" alt="WVLegislature" width="164" height="244" align="right" /></a> 3/10/09: In the <a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/">West Virginia Legislature</a>, <a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2009_SESSIONS/RS/Bills/hb3032%20intr.htm">HB 3032</a>, introduced on March 10, 2009, would give employees the right to review their personnel files.  The legislation has not been passed, and in prior legislative sessions, essentially the same bill was introduced without having been passed.</p>
<p>Many people have the incorrect understanding that, in West Virginia, an employer is legally required to allow an employee to review the employee&#8217;s personnel file. There is currently no such legal requirement, but the pending HB 3032 will change that if it is passed.</p>
<p>You can review the <a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2009_SESSIONS/RS/Bills/hb3032%20intr.htm">full text</a> of the bill, and monitor its <a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?year=2009&amp;sessiontype=RS">status on the Legislature&#8217;s site</a>.</p>
<p>Prepared by <a href="http://www.capuderfantasia.com/capuder.html">Drew M. Capuder</a> (<a href="http://www.capuderfantasia.com/contactus.html">contact information</a>)</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://capuderfantasia.com/blog/2009/03/west-virginia-legislature-may-force-employers-to-give-employees-access-to-their-personnel-files/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.452 seconds -->
