Summarizes recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on personal jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, including dissenting opinions and what it may mean for corporations going forward.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) means business. And in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 (May 21, 2018), the FAA means continued support for businesses. Interpreting the FAA, the Supreme Court held that employers and employees could agree to resolve disputes between them through one-on-one private arbitration and that arbitration agreements that disclaimed class actions or collective actions were enforceable.
Congress adopted the FAA in 1925, in “response to a perception that courts were unduly hostile to ...
In Sandifer et al. v. U.S. Steel Corp., No. 12-417 (Jan. 27, 2014), a unanimous Supreme Court recently affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of U.S. Steel Corp. (“Defendant”). The Court held that time spent by Plaintiffs, former and current employees of Defendant’s steelmaking facilities, donning and doffing protective gear at the beginning and end of each workday was not compensable under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Defendant and Plaintiffs’ union. This holding was based on the Court’s finding that Plaintiffs’ donning and doffing ...
On March 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles that class-action plaintiffs cannot circumvent the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) by stipulating damages under the jurisdictional threshold.
CAFA provides federal courts original jurisdiction over class actions where, among other things, the class has more than 100 members and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million exclusive of interest and costs. To calculate the amount in controversy, the claims of the ...