Congress Limits Arbitration of Employment Disputes by Defense Contractors and Subcontractors
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.23.09
On December 22, President Obama signed into law the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326). The spending bill includes a significant amendment, offered by Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, prohibiting certain government contractors from entering into or enforcing arbitration clauses in employment agreements.
The amendment, Section 8116 of the Act, specifies two conditions for receipt of contracts in excess of $1 million from "funds appropriated . . . by this Act." First, defense contractors and other entities receiving funds pursuant to the DoD Appropriations Act must, as a condition of receiving such funds, refrain from entering into any agreement with their employees or independent contractors that contains a mandatory arbitration clause for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or for certain torts related to sexual assault or harassment. Second, such contractors must refrain from enforcing such arbitration provisions in existing employment agreements. In addition, in 180 days, covered contractors will be required to certify that any subcontractor holding subcontracts in excess of $1 million has agreed to abide by these restrictions.
Approval of the DoD Appropriations Act with Senator Franken's amendment may be just the first volley in a broader Congressional battle over mandatory arbitration of employment disputes. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 is pending before the Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and the House. The Act, introduced in the House by Rep. Johnson of Georgia and in the Senate by Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin, would dramatically revise the Federal Arbitration Act by prohibiting the enforcement of nearly all pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate employment, civil rights, franchise, or consumer matters. All employers who are utilizing, or are considering moving to, mandatory arbitration of employment disputes have a stake in the battle that will resume in 2010.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25

