Skip to main content
Berkeley beginning on Muck Rack

Berkeley beginning

As seen in: Veredict
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work. Claim your profile

Get in touch with Berkeley

Contact Berkeley, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.

Learn more about Muck Rack

Actions

Share this page

Is this you?

As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile

Articles

After the Supreme Court’s Bissonnette Decision: Applying the Transportation Worker Exclusion Under the Federal Arbitration Act, Part II

|
By Barry Winograd, Berkeley beginning
| Veredict Verified
The first part of this column reviewed the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries dealing with the transportation worker exclusion under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act as well as issues that continue to generate litigation about its application. What should be done to resolve the continuing dispute over transportation workers under Section 1’s residual clause?
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

After the Supreme Court’s Bissonnette Decision: Applying the Transportation Worker Exclusion Under the Federal Arbitration Act, Part I

|
By Barry Winograd, Berkeley beginning
| Veredict Verified
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), enacted in 1925, authorizes courts to enforce “written agreements for arbitration.” An exception is made in Section 1 of the FAA, “for contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, decided unanimously in April by the U.S. Supreme Court, dealt with what is meant by the exception, but left much unanswered.
Open in Who Shared View Duplicates (2) Issue with article?

The Coinbase Arbitration Decision: Sensible Procedural Correction or Court Invention?

|
By Barry Winograd, Berkeley beginning
| Veredict Verified
In Coinbase v. Bielski, the U.S. Supreme Court in a five-four decision held that a litigation stay is required when an interlocutory appeal permitted by Section 16(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is taken from a federal district court order denying a motion to compel arbitration. Writing for the Court in favor of a mandatory stay was Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?
See all 4 articles