The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in yet another class arbitration dispute in the labor context.
Continue reading...Based on initial feedback from the Global Pound Conference, a Mixed Modes Task Force has been set up by the College of Commercial Arbitrators (CCA), the International Mediation Institute (IMI) and the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine School of Law to examine possible new ways of combining mediation with arbitration.
Continue reading...Joost Pauwelyn, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) in Geneva, Switzerland, Co-Director of the Institute’s Centre for Trade and Economic Integration (CTEI), and Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, has published “Baseball Arbitration to Resolve International Law Disputes: Hit or Miss?” Florida Tax Review, Vol. 22, 2018.
Continue reading...The Supreme Court of Texas has upheld an arbitrator’s award in a dispute between a Texas county and its deputy constables.
Continue reading...A federal judge has denied an employer’s motion to compel arbitration in a gender and race discrimination case. In AT&T Mobility Services, LLC v. Francesca Jean-Baptiste, No. 17-11962 (July 13, 2018), a woman, Jean-Baptiste, worked as an Assistant Store Manager at an AT&T store in New Jersey.
Continue reading...In Texas, a party has to object in writing to the mediation referral within ten days after receiving notice. The court, in its discretion, may or may not refer the dispute to mediation. Section 154.022 of the Texas ADR Act provides the basis for objection to referral pending litigation: (a) If a court determines that a pending dispute is appropriate for referral under Section 154.021, the court shall notify the parties of its determination. (b) Any party may, within 10 days after receiving the notice under Subsection (a), file a written objection to the referral. (c) If the court finds that there is a reasonable basis for an objection filed under Subsection (b), the court may not refer the dispute under Section 154.021. In Texas Dept. of Trans. v. Pirtle, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals addressed the consequences for not filing an objection under the Texas ADR Act. See Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Pirtle, 977 S.W.2d 657, 658 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied). There, the defendant, the Texas Department of Transportation, failed to object to the mediation then, it refused to participate in the mediation. The trial court subsequently sanctioned the defendant. The defendant argued that the defendant never settles cases as a matter of policy. The court distinguished Pirtle from other cases where the duty to mediate in good faith did not apply. Gleason v. Lawson, 850 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1993, no writ) (Court did not order the mediation); Hansen v. Sullivan, 886 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (The parties mediated in good faith but the matter could not be resolved); Decker v. Lindsay, 824 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (Party objected to the mediation order but the court overruled the objection). Finally, the court of appeals, in upholding the sanctions award, found that the duty to mediate attaches when a party is served with a mediation order and fails to object. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration
Continue reading...By Holly Hayes Robert Bordone, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program at Harvard Law School and co-editor of the widely used book “The Handbook of Dispute Resolution” discusses mistakes in the health care reform debate that could have been avoided by a better negotiation process in two interviews posted below. Watch the interview with Harvard Law Online: See this interview with CNN’s “Situation Room” hosted by Wolf Blitzer on February 24 (click here). Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.
Continue reading...By Holly Hayes Richard J. Webb, a guest-blogger on Disputing and author of the Healthcare Neutral ADR Blog, featured last week an excellent post on how the health care reform debate would look if it was mediated. Here is an excerpt: …. Leaving aside all of the ways in which the healthcare reform debate does not resemble the setting required for effective mediation, I began to imagine what I would do if thrust into a room with a commitment from both sides to mediate in good faith. Having reviewed the parties’ respective positions on numerous, individual proposals for reform, I first thought that there must be a way to parse and compromise among these proposals to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. But the more I thought about it, the clearer it became that such an effort would fail. I had an intuitive sense of why it would fail, but I struggled to explain that result in terms familiar to traditional mediation theory. In fact, I started a blog post on this subject, but put it aside, unfinished. Shortly after that, I read a description of the Frank Sander Lecture to be given by Professor Lawrence Susskind as the opening plenary of the ABA Dispute Resolution Section’s Annual Spring Conference on April 8th: “Values and Identity Conflicts: Proposing a New Dispute Resolution Doctrine.” The summary, which appears in the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution’s February Just Resolutions Enews (members only), turned on the light bulb in my head. Read the full post here. We appreciate Mr. Webb sharing his “light bulb” moment and welcome your comments on how the health care reform might look if it was mediated. Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.
Continue reading...Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.
Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.