Penn Plaza Argues for Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement in Merits Brief

Penn Plaza filed its merits brief in the Pyett case on May 5, 2008. For the brief, see http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/unscheduled.html In the brief, Penn Plaza argues that the Federal Arbitration Act does not treat individual arbitration agreements differently than agreements negotiated collectively. As a result, statutory authority does not support the Second Circuit’s decision. According to Penn Plaza, “[t]hat agreement, made by the respondents’ duly authorized collective bargaining agent, and voted upon and ratified by the union membership, should have been enforced just as if respondents had signed it themselves.”

The brief emphasizes that the CBA’s waiver of a judicial forum was clear and unmistakable as Wright v. Universal Maritime (a previous Supreme Court case) requires.

Finally, Penn Plaza contends that the Second Circuit’s decision is inconsistent with Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (500 U.S. 20, 1991). In Gilmer, the Supreme Court held that individual arbitration agreements covering statutory claims are enforceable. A contrary decision in the union-management context, argues Penn Plaza, would ignore the Gilmer line of cases that make abundantly clear that agreements to arbitrate statutory claims are enforceable.

For further commentary on this case, see www.adrworld.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.