<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Storm&#039;s Employment Law &#187; arbitration</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/arbitration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com</link>
	<description>The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Since 2004.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 15:29:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Bruce Nye on Arbitration</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/bruce-nye-on-arbitration/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/bruce-nye-on-arbitration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:03:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Go read.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/bruce-nye-on-arbitration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sonic-calabasas-a-inc-v-moreno/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sonic-calabasas-a-inc-v-moreno/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 20:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Short version: valid arbitration agreements preclude Berman hearings if not explicit carveout is included. This is more or less the DLSE&#8217;s interpretation (Manual 36.3 et seq.), believe it or not.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/sonic-calabasas-a-inc-v-moreno/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Study On Employment Arbitration</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/study-on-employment-arbitration/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/study-on-employment-arbitration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=410</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Workplace Prof Blog: Remarkably, state appellate courts confirmed only 56.4% of employee wins in arbitration. But when the same courts ruled on employer victories, they confirmed 86.7% of awards. The difference in rates was statistically significant. Similarly, federal appeals &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/study-on-employment-arbitration/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/study-on-employment-arbitration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Digest for the week of April 7, 2008</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/digest-for-the-week-of-april-7-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/digest-for-the-week-of-april-7-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blog News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislature]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m replacing high-bandwidth, low-usage podcasts with posts. Here&#8217;s the first one. • Last week, we took a look at the Metters case: another arbitration agreement is thrown out by the courts.  A number of BigLaw summaries of this case advised &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/digest-for-the-week-of-april-7-2008/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/digest-for-the-week-of-april-7-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Metters v. Ralphs: More Arbitroskepticism In California Courts</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feha]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Co (4th Dist. No. G038380) the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court&#8217;s finding that no valid arbitration agreement was entered into by an employee who was told he had to agree to an arbitration &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/metters-v-ralphs-more-arbitroskepticism-in-california-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ: Is Arbitration The New Litigation?</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wsj-is-arbitration-the-new-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wsj-is-arbitration-the-new-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:02:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wsj-is-arbitration-the-new-litigation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[h/t The Laconic Law Blog (Eric A. Welter) The Wall Street Journal&#8216;s law blog asks &#8220;Is Arbitration The New Litigation?&#8221; itself citing to a Financial Times article which highly touts arbitration.  The key quote, to me, is this: As the &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wsj-is-arbitration-the-new-litigation/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/wsj-is-arbitration-the-new-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gentry: Rehearing Denied</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-rehearing-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-rehearing-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-rehearing-denied/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rehearing denied and Remittitur issued.  Case closed.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/gentry-rehearing-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Murphy v. Check &#039;N Go (No. A11442): Gentry strikes!</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/murphy-v-check-n-go-no-a11442-gentry-strikes/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/murphy-v-check-n-go-no-a11442-gentry-strikes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gentry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage/hour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/murphy-v-check-n-go-no-a11442-gentry-strikes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Applying Gentry&#8216;s unconscionability analysis, the First District struck down an arbitration agreement including a class action waiver. (It did not appear to apply the &#8220;statutory mandate&#8221; part of Gentry.)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/murphy-v-check-n-go-no-a11442-gentry-strikes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arbitration Blow-Back</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/arbitration-blow-back/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/arbitration-blow-back/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:41:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ross&#8217;s Arbitration Blog has more on a new campaign by Public Citizen against arbitration provisions.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/arbitration-blow-back/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

