Stephens & Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Significance, Legislative History, Through The Looking Glass, The Controversy Continues, Further Readings

Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Further Readings

Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Significance

In a unanimous ruling in May of 1998, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals barred employers from requiring new employees to sign agreements as a condition of employment that they will settle sexual discrimination and sexual harassment disputes by means of arbitration, rather than in courts of law. This ruling appeared to end uncertainty and conflict among circuit courts on this issue, but in June of…

Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Legislative History

The critical language of the act is found in Section 118, which states that parties to Title VII disputes could, "[w]here appropriate and to the extent authorized by law," choose to pursue other methods of resolving them, including arbitration. Robertson Stephens argued that this language shows congressional intent to allow, even encourage, the kind of process represented by Form U-4. The firm als…

Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Through The Looking Glass

The Supreme Court's decision in the Gilmer case was handed down just before the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was passed. The judge conceded that the decisions in Gilmer and Gardner may not coincide with Congress' intend as written "to the extent authorized by law." But, "even a cursory glance" at Section 118's legislative history makes it clear that Congress "in no way intended to incorporate" Gilmer'…

Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - The Controversy Continues