Is Stolt-Nielsen a Game-Changer for Companies Considering the Use of Arbitration?
Labor and Employment Alert August 19, 2010 View PDF File In weighing the pros and cons of alternative dispute resolution in the employment context, the scale often tips against the use of arbitration agreements due to concerns such as whether the promised speed and efficiency will, in fact, materialize in practice, as well as the unpredictability of arbitrators, the potential drawbacks of limited discovery and the extreme difficulty in appealing arbitration decisions. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s April 27, 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed. 2d 605 (2010), which strengthened the ability of companies to avoid the imposition of classwide arbitrations, employers without arbitration agreements may want to reconsider whether the balance has shifted in favor of such alternative means of resolving employment disputes. Stolt-Nielsen’s Alteration of the Class Arbitration Landscape In Stolt-Nielsen, the Supreme Court emphasized
