SPIDR seeks proposals for 1998 Annual Conference in Portland, Oregon

The Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR) invites proposals for the 1998 Annual Conference, scheduled for October 15-17, 1998 in Portland, Oregon on the themes of Power, Politics and Collaboration.  SPIDR especially encourages sessions dealing with actual practices "on the ground" and focusing on promoting diversity and best practices. SPIDR encourages collaboration between academics, students of conflict resolution, and practitioners. The proposal deadline is November 14, 1997.  For more information, including a call for proposals and proposal forms, contact Janice Robertson at: spidr@igc.apc.org

GAO Publishes Report: Employer's Experiences With ADR in the Workplace  

The Government Accounting Office published in August 1997 a report focusing on: (1) private sector companies' and federal agencies' reasons for using ADR; (2) the types of ADR these organizations have made available to their employees through procedures other than those under collective bargaining agreements and the extent to which they have put these ADR processes in place; and (3) the results, if any, they have achieved by using ADR.  A hard copy of the report can be obtained by using our Automated Document Delivery Service, online at our website or at the GAO website  (http://www.gao.gov), or by calling the GAO at (202) 512-6000.  The report numbers approximately 64 pages. [Full Document: Request 2971601]

Sixth Geneva Global Arbitration Forum

The Sixth Geneva Global Arbitration Forum will be held December 3-4, 1997 at the Hotel des Bergues in Geneva, Switzerland.  The forum is sponsored by:  Chamber of Commerce/Industry  of Geneva; Journal of International Arbitration; Journal of World Trade; and Kluwer Law International.  To register, fax: 41-22-311-45-92.  Cost: SFR 550; US $ 425. [Conference Programme: Request 2971605]

Course:  Resolving Workplace Disputes Involving Individuals with Disabilities

The Institute for ADA Mediation is sponsoring this course, which will take place on November 6 & 7, from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm (13.0 CLE hrs.) at the College of Business & Public Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.  For more information, contact:  Mary Ellen Harned, Director Institute for ADA Mediation 410 West Chestnut St. Louisville, KY 40202. - she can be reached by  phone  (502) 458-9675; fax  (502) 595-2362;  e-mail  info@accessada.win.net  or web site http://www.win.net/accessada

WWW Article on the Use of ADR in Technology Disputes

The National Law Journal has posted an article by Seymour E. Hollander on the use of ADR in Technology Disputes.  Mr. Hollander examines the role of ADR in patent disputes from two different schools of thought. On one side are "traditionalists," who favor litigation. On the other are "progressives," who view ADR as a viable option.  Pros and cons of both perspectives are discussed.  A full text of the article can be obtained at the following URL:  http://www.ljextra.com/patents/0127patadr.html

Court Proceedings Must Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal Re Arbitrability Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network (7th  Cir 10/14/97)  

Bradford-Scott sued Physician for breach of a licensing agreement after Physician purchased a competitor of Bradford-Scott.  The parties had two contracts, one with a broad arbitration clause, the other with a narrow one. The district court found that Bradford-Scott was not required to arbitrate. Physician appealed and requested a stay of court proceedings, which was refused.  Judge Easterbrook of the Circuit Court found that continuation of the district court proceedings would defeat the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC sec. 16(a)(1)(A), which permits an appeal from any order refusing a stay of action under sec. 3 of that act. "Anti-arbitration decisions are immediately appealable, while orders enforcing arbitration clauses may be appealed only following the close of the entire case." [Full Decision: Not Available Online - 1997 WL 631327]

CBA Did Not Mandate Arbitration of Title VII Claim Brown v. Trans World Airlines (4th Cir. 10/6/97)  

Brown brought Title VII and FMLA claims against TWA, which countered that the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration.  The court reversed the district court's granting TWA summary judgment.  Although CBA clauses providing for mandatory arbitration of statutory claims are enforceable, the clause at issue did not so provide, found the court. [Full Decision: Request 2971603]

Judgment Against Union For Failure to Process Disability Claim Reversed Roberts v. Unidynamics Corp, et al (8th Cir. 10/6/97)

Roberts alleged that his employer (Unidynamics) and his union (Aerospace Workers) discriminated against him because they perceived him as having HIV (in fact, he had Graves disease).  He alleged, because of that perception, the employer fired him and the union refused to process his grievance through arbitration.  The trial court, upon a jury verdict, entered judgment for Roberts, and refused the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial.  The circuit court reversed and ordered judgment for defendants because Roberts failed to provide sufficient evidence that the defendants in fact perceived him as having HIV. [Full Decision: Request 2971604]

Actual Parties Must Sign Settlement Under Mediation Rule 1.730 City of Delray Beach v. Keiser (Fla.App., 4 Dist. 10/1/97)

The court held that mediation Rule 1.730 requires that each party to a mediation sign their settlement agreement; the signature of counsel is insufficient, even if signed in the presence of the parties.  The dissent argued that a breach of a mediation rule, such as Rule 1.730, would only bring the settlement agreement outside of the mediation rules, where agency law would uphold the contract. [Full Decision Not Available Online: 1997 WL 600620]

"Interpretation, Application or Breach" Clause Does Not Compel Arbitration of a Statutory Claim Moe v. REO Plastics, Inc (Minn. App. 10/7/97)(unpublished opinion)

The court held that in a collective bargaining agreement, which provides for arbitration for the purposes of "interpretation, application or breach", does not compel the arbitration of a statutory sexual harassment claim.  The court declined to reach the question of whether it would violate the Human Rights Act voiding provision to require the arbitration of statutory claim. [Full Decision: Request 2971607]

Must Raise Affirmative Defenses, Including Jurisdictional Claims, Before Time Limit Springfield Teachers Ass'n v. Springfield Sch. Dirs.(Vt. 10/10/97)

The court decided to follow federal decisions and held that, in response to an application to confirm an arbitration award, a party cannot raise affirmative defenses beyond the time limit for a motion to vacate an arbitration award, as provided for in 12 V.S.A. '5677(c).  Additionally, the court held that jurisdictional claims are not exempted from the statutory time limit. [Full Decision: Request 2971608]

Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Vermont Arbitration Act Little v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Vt. 10/10/97)

The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the Vermont Arbitration Act, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.  Furthermore, the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not change the result in the insurance industry, because the VAA was not enacted to regulate insurance. [Full Decision: Request 2971609]

Employer Waives Arbitration Right By Filing Suit in Another State Turford v. Underwood (Tex.App., Beaumont 10/9/97)(unpublished opinion)

Turford sought a declaration of the invalidity of his covenant not to compete with his former employer Anatec.  When the trial judge ordered Turford to arbitrate (upon Anatec's motion), Turford sought a writ of mandamus.  The Court of Appeals granted the writ, concluding that Anatec waived its rights to arbitrate its claim against Turford when it acted inconsistently with the arbitration agreement and thereby prejudiced Turford.  Anatec waived its arbitration right when it filed suit for breach of contract in Michigan, and then filed a motion to compel arbitration in Texas, which precluded litigation of Turford's challenge to the enforceability of the agreement. [Full Decision Not Available Online:  1997 WL 624858]

Summary Judgment Makes Compulsory Arbitration Moot Bowen v. Bank One (Ohio App., 10th Dist 10/2/97)(unpublished opinion)

The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court correctly sustained a motion for summary judgment in a matter that had previously been assigned for arbitration under local rules which provided that the trial court maintains full supervisory power over all aspects of the proceedings.  The Court of Appeals said that the trial court appropriately granted a motion to stay arbitration to allow a ruling on dispositive motions when a motion to dismiss / motion for summary judgment could alleviate the need for arbitration. [Full Decision Not Available Online: 1997 WL 606864]

Automated Document Delivery Service delivers text via email:   Look for the request number following each summary.
Address email to:   rrunkel@willamette.edu
In the Subject line write:   request 297131     
or whatever the appropriate number is. Leave the message itself blank. Send a separate message for each item requested. For a list of items available, request 2001
** Full text also on our web page: http://www.willamette.edu/dis-res/

Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution
Willamette University Dispute Resolution Information Service
http://www.willamette.edu/dis-res/
Faculty Editor:  Professor Ross Runkel -- rrunkel@willamette.edu
Student Editor:  David Griggs -- dgriggs@willamette.edu
Student Editorial Board: Sara Allen, Andrew Glascock, Robert Hutchings, Deborah Keller, Mario Madden and Amy Smith