Appellate Practice,
Labor/Employment,
Civil Litigation
May 23, 2019
Implied-in-fact arbitration agreements: when no doesn’t mean no
Two recent appellate decisions reach opposite conclusions in very similar situations. These decisions remind us that there rarely is such a thing as “the law.” Outcomes are dependent on the facts, the lawyering , and the judge.
Michael H. Leb
Neutral
Leb Dispute Resolutions
Labor & Employment
Phone: (310) 284-8224
Fax: (310) 284-8229
Email: michael@lebdr.com
U Michigan Law School
THE NEUTRAL CORNER is a monthly column discussing recent cases or topics of interest from a neutral's perspective.
THE NEUTRAL CORNER
In my last column, I defended the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements while acknowledging the validity of some of the criticisms leveled by strong opponents of these clauses. Two recent cases, Diaz v. Sohnen Enterprises and
Or access this article for $45
Already a subscriber?
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up