About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (Updated January 12, 2001)

handle is hein.crs/crsabdb0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 98-940 A Updated January 12, 2001 Enforceability of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp. Jon 0. Shimabukuro Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary In Wrightv. Universal Maritime Service Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court found that a mandatory arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement was not enforceable because it failed to specify arbitration as the covered employees' sole method of obtaining relief for their statutory claims. Without such explicit language in the agreement, the union could not have made a clear and unmistakable waiver of the employees' rights to a judicial forum. Although the Court identified a clear and unmistakable waiver standard for determining whether a mandatory arbitration agreement could be enforced, it refrained from deciding whether a union could actually bargain for such a waiver. Arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution have become increasingly more common as employers and employees seek faster resolutions and lower litigation costs. In response to the rising number of discrimination claims brought under federal civil rights statutes, many employers now attempt to require arbitration or alternative dispute resolution by having their employees sign pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements. At minimum, these agreements require employees to arbitrate their claims before they may file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, other agreements are more expansive; they deny employees any opportunity to resolve their disputes outside of arbitration or alternative dispute resolution. In November, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., a case from the Fourth Circuit involving the enforceability of a mandatory arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement.1 Despite two prior Supreme Court decisions regarding mandatory arbitration, the U.S. circuit courts of appeals had continued Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web 1 Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most