The following bills relating to alternative dispute resolution were introduced by the 113th U.S. Congress. The session convened in Washington, D.C. on January 3, 2013 and will end on January 3, 2015. Click on the bill number to read its text and on the status link to find the bill’s most recent legislative action. Bills that passed: Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. Amends Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and requires that alternative dispute resolution procedures, including binding arbitration, be established to resolve any questions related to who is eligible for disaster relief assistance. H.R.152; Status. Bills currently pending: Labor Relations First Contract Negotiations Act of 2013. Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes. H.R.169; Status. Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2013. As introduced, the bill seeks to implement health care liability reforms and limit contingency fees based on the amount of a damages award whether received through “judgment, settlement, mediation, arbitration, or any other form of alternative dispute resolution.” S.44; Status. Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013. Prohibits any requirement that a farm borrower “waive any right under the mediation program of any State.” S.10; Status. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. Prohibits any entity that supports families in the justice system from requiring “mediation or counseling involving offenders and victims being physically present in the same place, in cases where domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is alleged.” S. 47; Status. Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act of 2013. Amends an exception from automatic stay of pay provision with regard to executive compensation following a business bankruptcy to include “commencement or continuation of a grievance, arbitration, or similar dispute resolution proceeding established by a collective bargaining agreement that was or could have been commenced against the debtor before the filing of a case under this title, or the payment or enforcement of an award or settlement under such proceeding.” H.R. 100; Status. Stay tuned to Disputing for more legislative updates!

The American College of Healthcare Executives is offering five education seminars in 2013 of interest to healthcare mediators: Managing Conflict, Confrontations and Disputes. Seminar leaders are David Maxfield and Stacy D. Nelson, EdD. The course builds on skills and techniques of the best-selling books Crucial Conversations, Crucial Confrontations and Influencer: The Power to Change Anything. Conflict Management, Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Cost-Effective Use of Legal Services. Seminar leaders are Lisa D. Vandecaveye, JD and G. Thomas Sullivan, JD. The seminar is an introduction to ADR and provides attendees with an understanding of The Joint Commission standard that mandates hospitals have a dispute management process. Toxic Behaviors in Healthcare: Creating Systems of Respect to Impact theDouble Bottom Line. Seminar leaders are Mitchell E. Kusy, PhD and Elizabeth L. Holloway, PhD. The session examines the effects of disruptive behavior on staff performance and patient safety and reviews a feedback technique to modify disruptive behavior. A Review of Health Law: 2013 Update. This online seminar is led by Sarah F. Fontenot, JD and describes legal implications of healthcare reform. Compelling Communication: Creating Engagement, Understanding and Results. Seminar leader is Craig Deao. The course teaches communication skills to produce consensus, ownership and results.

It looks like Lance Armstrong’s legal troubles in connection with his use of performance enhancing drugs and other measures to secure seven Tour de France victories are far from over. Last fall, the International Cycling Union released its decision to recognize the USADA’s findings against Armstrong. In the decision, all of Armstrong’s competitive results achieved after August 1, 1998 were disqualified. In addition, United States Justice Department officials are reportedly considering whether to join a federal whistleblower lawsuit aimed at clawing back about $35 million in United States Postal Service sponsorship money. Now, two men who reportedly purchased non-fiction books written by Armstrong have now filed a fraud lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in California. In their lawsuit, the two allege they never would have purchased the best-selling books if they were aware of the truth about Armstrong’s cheating. The lawsuit seeks class action status to represent all individuals who bought Armstrong’s allegedly non-fiction books titled “It’s not about the Bike,” and “Every Second Counts.” Intrigued? Read more about the case at ABA Journal.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed and remanded the Second District in Fort Worth’s ruling in Richmont Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Superior Recharge Systems, L.L.C., et al. (No. 12-142). The interlocutory appeal arose after Richmont Holdings purchased the assets of Superior Recharge Systems. A provision in the purchase agreement stated: “Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by binding arbitration.” As part of the asset purchase, one of Richmont Holdings’ affiliates, Superior Acquisition, agreed to hire Superior Recharge Systems owner and manager Jon Blake. An employment contract stated Blake would serve as general manager of Superior Acquisition for a period of two years and included a non-compete clause. The employment agreement did not include an arbitration provision. After six months, however, Blake’s employment with the company was terminated. Blake filed a lawsuit against Richmont Holdings, Superior Acquisition, and others (Richmont) seeking damages related to his employment agreement. Richmont answered Blake’s complaint and then filed a motion to compel arbitration 18 months later. Richmont also submitted a copy of the asset purchase agreement in support of the company’s motion to compel arbitration. Blake responded by stating Richmont previously waived its right to arbitrate by substantially invoking the judicial process. The trial court agreed with Blake. On appeal, The Second District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s holding on different grounds. According to the Fort Worth court, Richmont failed to establish that an arbitration agreement applied to the parties’ dispute. The court stated the employment agreement dispute arose separately from the asset purchase agreement. Because of this, the appellate court did not reach the waiver issue. Richmont appealed the matter to the Supreme Court of Texas stating the Second District incorrectly determined that the parties had no valid agreement to engage in arbitration. Blake conceded that the arbitration provision in the parties’ asset purchase agreement applied to the dispute but again stated that Richmont waived its right to arbitrate. According to the Texas Supreme Court, The court of appeals’ conclusion that the arbitration provision in the asset purchase agreement has no application to Blake’s lawsuit is contrary to the parties’ contentions and has no support in the record. Moreover, the court’s failure to recognize the arbitration agreement here is contrary to our precedent, which mandates enforcement of such an agreement absent proof of a defense. Finally, the case was reversed and remanded to the Second District Appeals Court for consideration of Blake’s waiver defense.