![]() The RESOLVE arbitrations are to be conducted by the American Arbitration Association ( AAA ) in accordance with AAA rules, as amended or modified by certain RESOLVE-specific provisions, including the requirements, among others, that each arbitration be held near where the employee worked and that the arbitration agreements are to 2 be construed according to Ohio law. Finally, if the employee is still not satisfied, she may proceed to the third step, binding arbitration. If the employee is unsatisfied with the company s response, her second step is to file an appeal, which the program administrator may assign either to an outside administrator or to a peer review panel. Under RESOLVE, when an employee believes she has been subjected to an unlawful employment action, her first step is to contact the RESOLVE program administrator and file a complaint. B to Sterling Clause Construction Br.) ¶ 11 & Tab 2. Subsequently, the named plaintiffs in this action all signed agreements requiring them to use RESOLVE for all employment disputes, including the Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims asserted here. By way of background, in June 1998 Sterling put in place a three-step alternative dispute resolution program called RESOLVE. This Opinion gives the reasons for that ruling and directs the parties to update the Court on the status of the arbitration. By summary Order dated August 31, 2009, the Court denied Sterling s motion in its entirety. After the arbitrator further clarified this ruling on June 26, 2009, Sterling moved this Court to vacate this determination or, in the alternative, to stay the arbitration proceedings. Thereafter, the arbitrator, on June 1, 2009, issued a threshold ruling that the arbitration agreement did not prohibit class arbitration. In a Memorandum Order dated Jthat elucidated the reasons for that ruling, the Court determined that the arbitration agreement granted the Court discretion as to whether to decide or to refer to the arbitrator certain threshold issues, notably, whether the matter could proceed as a class action and the Court decided that referral of such issues to the arbitrator made better sense. By summary Order dated June 18, 2008, the Court granted plaintiffs motion to refer the dispute to arbitration and to stay the instant litigation pending conclusion of that arbitration. § 2000e et seq., and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. ( Sterling ), a nationwide specialty jeweler, brought this class action alleging that Sterling discriminated against them in pay and promotion on the basis of their gender, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Plaintiffs, current and former female employees of defendant Sterling Jewelers, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : -v: : STERLING JEWELERS, INC., : : Defendant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |