![shipping in the sunset](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/images/nrf/nrfweb/knowledge/publications/shipping-leaglseas-sunset.jpg?w=265&revision=&revision=4611686018427387904&hash=CD7402DBAFA84BBC710A6EA7A508AE33)
Publication
Modern slavery and human trafficking reporting: Maritime supply chain risks
According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), an estimated 50 million people globally were living in modern slavery on any given day in 2021.
Author:
United States | Publication | February 2023
In a somewhat remarkable reversal Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit issued its highly anticipated opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta—holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted California's law criminalizing the use of mandatory employee arbitration agreements. The decision came on the heels of the panel's surprising decision to withdraw its initial decision which arrived at the exact opposite conclusion.
The law, passed in 2020, was enacted to protect employees from "forced arbitration" by making it a criminal offense for an employer to require an existing employee or applicant to consent to arbitrate employment-related claims as a condition of employment. In its prior opinion (issued in 2021), the Ninth Circuit panel found that the FAA did not preempt California's law because it only criminalized contract formation; but allowed an arbitration agreement—even one violative of the law—to be enforced. In the wake of that decision, however, the US Supreme Court weighed in on another California law which prohibited arbitration of employment claims brought under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). In that case, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, the Supreme Court held that the law was preempted by the FAA. Given that decision, and the subsequent appeal from the US Chamber of Commerce for an en banc rehearing of this case, the Ninth Circuit made an about-face, withdrew its initial decision and granted a rehearing before the same panel.
Through Wednesday's opinion, the court reconciled the Ninth Circuit's approach with that set forth by its sister circuits and the US Supreme Court. Specifically, the court held that where a law limits the ability of parties to form arbitration agreements, as was the case here, it conflicts with the FAA and is therefore preempted by it.
The upshot of this ruling is straight forward—more California employers are likely to use mandatory binding arbitration to resolve employment disputes.
We expect that this decision will be appealed to either the entire Ninth Circuit en banc, the US Supreme Court or both. Meanwhile, the district court's injunction invalidating the law will remain in effect pending the outcome of those appeals.
If you have any questions concerning this decision and the current state of play for employment arbitration agreements, please reach out to Phillip Di Tullio.
Publication
According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), an estimated 50 million people globally were living in modern slavery on any given day in 2021.
Publication
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
Publication
On February 2, 2024, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union confirmed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives had signed the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation, referred to as the AI Act. Approval by the EU Parliament followed on 13 March 2024, and the AI Act is likely to appear in the EU’s Official Journal around May 2024. The AI Act aims to establish a stringent legal framework governing the development, marketing, and utilisation of artificial intelligence within the region, thereby marking a significant advancement in the regulation of this burgeoning domain.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023