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 | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate

