To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Arbitrations have been on the rise for several years, in part because of the convenience it affords the parties and the introduction of arbitration clauses into the language of almost every contract. The pandemic has sent the use of this mode of dispute resolution into overdrive, in large part because of its speed and relatively easy transition to a virtual setting. While arbitrations were already popular pre-pandemic, we expect the increased attraction of “work from home” arbitrations to continue.
We often hear from clients with arbitrations that preparing for them is easier than preparing for a jury trial. In addition to the convenience factor, the expectation is that arbitrators can often be more reliable and more analytical decision makers than juries and possibly even judges. However, a growing body of research shows that – surprise, surprise – arbitrators are human, too. We have learned from three areas of r
By Jeanne Leong
When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that banned discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, law professors and advocates saw the influence of Rutgers Law Professor Katie Eyer’s work in the opinion.
Eyer authored an article, and later an amicus “friend of the court” brief, arguing that textualism a theory that the interpretation of the law should center on the legal text required the court to conclude that gay and transgender employees are protected by Title VII. The Supreme Court adopted this argument, ruling by a 6-3 margin in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County that workplace discrimination basedon an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.