The following bills relating to alternative dispute resolution were introduced by the 112nd U.S. Congress. The session convened in Washington, D.C. on January 3, 2011 and will end on January 3, 2013. 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: Patent Reform Act of 2011 (a.k.a. America Invents Act). The Act provides, among other things that parties to a derivation proceeding may resolve the dispute via arbitration. See Section 135(f). H.R. 1249; Status. H.R. 1249 was signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011 and became Public Law No. 112-29. Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011. Provides, among other things, that “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be expended for any Federal contract for an amount in excess of $1,000,000 unless the contractor agrees not to—1) enter into any agreement with any of its employees or independent contractors that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” H.R.1473; Status. The Act was signed by the President on April 15, 2011 and became Public Law No. 112-10. Bills still pending: Consumer Mobile Fairness Act of 2011. The bill would amend title 9 of the United States Code to prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts for mobile service. S. 1652; Status. Disaster Recovery Act of 2011. The bill would create a dispute resolution program to facilitate an efficient recovery from major disasters. S. 1630; Status. Personal Data Protection and Breach Accountability Act of 2011. As introduced, the bill provides that “the rights and remedies afforded by this section shall not be abridged or precluded by any predispute arbitration agreement. S. 1535 IS; S. 1535 RS; Status. Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act. The bill would create an emergency jobs program during 2012 and 2013. The bill provides that each unit of general local government that is an entitlement community and each State that receives funding under the Act shall agree to the arbitration procedure described in the Act to resolve certain disputes. H.R. 2914; Status. American Specialty Agriculture Act. The Act would create a non-immigrant H-2C work visa program for agricultural workers and provides that any H-2C worker may, as a condition of employment with an employer, be subject to mandatory binding arbitration and mediation of any grievance relating to the employment relationship. H.R. 2847; Status. Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011. Declares that no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of an employment, consumer, or civil rights dispute. S.987; Status. H.R.1873; Status. Lat year, the ABA sent a letter to the sponsors of the legislation expressing concerns regarding certain specific language in the bill that could inadvertently void existing international commercial arbitration agreements and potentially discourage international commercial parties from engaging in commerce with U.S. parties. Labor Relations First Contract Negotiations Act of 2011. Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes. H.R.129; Status. Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2011. Certain appropriations for the Surface Transportation Board, including requiring the Board to establish a binding arbitration process to resolve rail rate, practice, and common carrier service disputes. S.158; Status. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Enhancement Act of 2011. “In the event of any dispute about an appropriate share or a fair method of determining an appropriate share of applicable costs of the testing requirements in a test order, any person involved in the dispute may initiate binding arbitration proceedings by requesting the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to appoint an arbitrator from the roster of arbitrators maintained by such Service or a hearing with a regional office of the American Arbitration Association.” H.R.553; Status. Non-Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011. It includes provisions on the nonenforceability of waivers and arbitration of disputes. S.241; Status. National Guard Technician Equity Act. Provides for a technician’s rights of grievance, arbitration, appeal, and review beyond the current stage of the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned. H.R.1169; Status. Postal Operations Sustainment and Transformation Act of 2011. Section 401 of the Act includes arbitration and labor dispute guidelines. S.1010; Status. Soledad Canyon High Desert, California Public Lands Conservation and Management Act of 2011. Advises the use of arbitration under Subchapter IV of chapter 5 of section 5 of the USC. S.759; Status. FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act of 2011. Requires the FAA Administrator and employee bargaining representatives, if their own negotiations and the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) have failed to lead to an agreement, to submit their controversy to the Federal Service Impasses Panel, subject to specified procedures, for binding arbitration. H.R.658; Status. S. 223; Status. Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2011 (MCAP Act). The limitations within the act apply to arbitration, and nothing in the act is meant to supersede arbitration. S.197; Status. Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011. Provides that, “whether by arbitration or other means, in any health care lawsuit, the court shall supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to protect against conflicts of interest that may have the effect of reducing the amount of damages awarded that are actually paid to claimants.” S.1099; Status. S.218; Status. H.R.5; Status. U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011. Authorizes arbitration boards to consider the financial condition of the USPS in rendering decisions. S.353; Status. Preventing Homeowners from Foreclosure Act of 2011. Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement a competitive grants program for states and local governmental entities to establish mediation programs to assist mortgagors under home mortgages facing foreclosure […]

by Jeremy Clare On October 22, 2012, the International Cycling Union (UCI) released its decision regarding USADA’s case against Lance Armstrong. UCI came to three main conclusions: (1) UCI will not appeal USADA’s reasoned decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS); (2) UCI will recognize and implement USADA’s reasoned decision; and (3) UCI will disqualify all competitive results achieved by Mr. Armstrong from August 1, 1998 thereafter. In determining whether or not to appeal to the CAS, UCI determined that jurisdiction of the case was no longer an issue. UCI still believes that it should have handled the case first, but it also determined that USADA would have ultimately dealt with the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Armstrong even if UCI had jurisdiction initially. Furthermore, because Mr. Armstrong chose not to proceed to arbitration, USADA would have made its decision in the same manner. UCI also determined that it would have limited the disciplinary proceedings to only those violations that occurred within the last eight years in accordance with the statute of limitations under the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code). UCI disagreed with USADA’s determination that the statute of limitations was suspended because Mr. Armstrong concealed the violations. UCI argued that the statute of limitations within the Code is clear and applying it differently depending on the particular national laws and standards would be in direct contradiction with the purpose of harmonization of the Code. However, because Mr. Armstrong failed to invoke the statute of limitations and because it is the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) responsibility to ensure compliance with the Code, UCI decided not to appeal to the CAS. Ultimately, UCI recognized USADA’s decision. In doing so, UCI will disqualify all competitive results achieved by Mr. Armstrong in cycling sing August 1, 1998, including his seven Tour de France wins. UCI’s recognition did not alter its position on the issue of the statute of limitations, and UCI noted that the sanctions are still subject to appeal by WADA or Mr. Armstrong. WADA has 21 days to appeal to the CAS. Related Posts: USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Statute of Limitations, Disputing, October 22, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Evidence against Armstrong, Disputing, October 19, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of Proof, Disputing, October 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Charges Brought against Armstrong, Disputing, October 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Issues its Reasoned Opinion Describing its Evidence against Lance Armstrong, Disputing, October 15, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Remaining Procedural Steps, Disputing, August 29, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Announces Lance Armstrong’s Lifetime Ban from Sport and Forfeiture of Titles, Disputing, August 24, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Austin Federal Court Dismisses Lance Armstrong Lawsuit Against USADA, Disputing, August 20, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Federal Court to Rule Before August 23, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Hearing is Today, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA’s Motion to Dismiss, Disputing, August 8, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Fairness of Arbitration Procedure, Disputing, August 8, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Jurisdiction, Disputing, August 7, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Existence of Agreement to Arbitrate, Disputing, August 6, 2012 The International Convention Against Doping in Sport of 2005, Disputing, August 2, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA’s Successful Arbitration Track Record, Disputing, August 1, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part VI | Right to Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Disputing, July 30, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part V |USADA Expedited Track, Disputing, July 26, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part IV | The Arbitration Hearing, Disputing, July 25, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part III | The Appointment of Arbitrators, Disputing, July 24, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part II | The Review Board Track, Disputing, July 23, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | USADA Files Motion to Dismiss Lance Armstrong’s Suit , Disputing, July 21, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part I | USADA ‘Results Management,’ Disputing, July 19, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Texas Federal Court Will Hear Lance Armstrong Case on August 10, Disputing, July 18, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong’s Suit and Restraining Order against USADA, Disputing, July 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | What is the USADA? Disputing, July 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Allegations, Disputing, July 13, 2012 Lance Armstrong | The Doping Controversy Continues, Disputing, July 12, 2012 Jeremy Clare is a law clerk at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert. Jeremy received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2012 and received a B.A. from the University of South Carolina where he studied political science.  

by Jeremy Clare USADA is seeking the disqualification of all of Mr. Lance Armstrong’s competitive results from August 1, 1998 onward. According to Article 17 of the World Anti-Doping Code, the statute of limitations for an action brought against an athlete is eight years from the date that the alleged violation(s) occurred. However, USADA claimed that the statute of limitations was suspended because Mr. Armstrong concealed the violations. In its Reasoned Decision, USADA cited one Court of Arbitration for Sport decision, one United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit decision, and one American Arbitration Association decision in support of its claim that the statute of limitations was suspended because Mr. Armstrong concealed the violations. USADA further stated that it is a “well-established principle” that the statute of limitations is suspended if the person seeking to assert it as a defense has “subverted the judicial process.” Finally, USADA noted that Mr. Armstrong could have challenged USADA’s assertion that the statute of limitations was suspended after he received notice of USADA’s allegations in the initial charging letter, but Mr. Armstrong failed to make any such challenge. Related Posts: USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Evidence against Armstrong, Disputing, October 19, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of Proof, Disputing, October 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Charges Brought against Armstrong, Disputing, October 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Issues its Reasoned Opinion Describing its Evidence against Lance Armstrong, Disputing, October 15, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Remaining Procedural Steps, Disputing, August 29, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Announces Lance Armstrong’s Lifetime Ban from Sport and Forfeiture of Titles, Disputing, August 24, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Austin Federal Court Dismisses Lance Armstrong Lawsuit Against USADA, Disputing, August 20, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Federal Court to Rule Before August 23, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Hearing is Today, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA’s Motion to Dismiss, Disputing, August 8, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Fairness of Arbitration Procedure, Disputing, August 8, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Jurisdiction, Disputing, August 7, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Existence of Agreement to Arbitrate, Disputing, August 6, 2012 The International Convention Against Doping in Sport of 2005, Disputing, August 2, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA’s Successful Arbitration Track Record, Disputing, August 1, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part VI | Right to Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Disputing, July 30, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part V |USADA Expedited Track, Disputing, July 26, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part IV | The Arbitration Hearing, Disputing, July 25, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part III | The Appointment of Arbitrators, Disputing, July 24, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part II | The Review Board Track, Disputing, July 23, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | USADA Files Motion to Dismiss Lance Armstrong’s Suit , Disputing, July 21, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part I | USADA ‘Results Management,’ Disputing, July 19, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Texas Federal Court Will Hear Lance Armstrong Case on August 10, Disputing, July 18, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong’s Suit and Restraining Order against USADA, Disputing, July 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | What is the USADA? Disputing, July 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Allegations, Disputing, July 13, 2012 Lance Armstrong | The Doping Controversy Continues, Disputing, July 12, 2012 Jeremy Clare is a law clerk at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert. Jeremy received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2012 and received a B.A. from the University of South Carolina where he studied political science.  

by Jeremy Clare The overall purpose of USADA’s Reasoned Decision was to present the evidence it gathered in order to justify the sanctions against Mr. Armstrong. The Reasoned Decision gives both, a detailed account and an extensive summary of the evidence. USADA had sworn statements from more than two dozen witnesses. The witnesses include fifteen professional cyclists and Armstrong’s former masseuse. Eleven of those cyclists were members of Armstrong’s cycling teams. The evidence also includes banking and accounting records from one of Armstrong’s former doctors, email communications between Armstrong and his doctor, laboratory test results, and expert analysis of Mr. Armstrong’s blood test results. USADA gathered evidence to support allegations that Mr. Armstrong used erythropoietin (EPO), participated in a blood doping program, and used testosterone in violation of the World Anti-Doping Code. The following is a list of the testimony USADA gathered. Keep in mind that many of the witnesses provided testimony for multiple years. 1998 – Seven eyewitnesses from the 1998 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from two Italian professional cyclists. 1999 – Seven eyewitnesses from the 1999 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from two Italian professional cyclists. 2000 – Five eyewitnesses from the 2000 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from one Italian professional cyclist. 2001 – Five eyewitnesses from the 2001 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from one additional US professional cyclist. Testimony from one additional former US Postal Service team member. 2002 – Five eyewitnesses from the 2002 US Postal Service cycling team. 2003 – Five eyewitnesses from the 2003 US Postal Service cycling team. Records from one of Armstrong’s former doctors. Testimony from two of Armstrong’s friends. 2004 – Four eyewitness from the 2004 US Postal Service cycling team. Testimony from two additional professional cyclists. Testimony from two of Armstrong’s friends. 2005 – Three eyewitnesses from the 2005 Discovery Channel cycling team. Testimony from three additional professional cyclists. Testimony from two of Armstrong’s friends. Related Posts: USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Standard of Proof and Means of Proof, Disputing, October 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Charges Brought against Armstrong, Disputing, October 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Issues its Reasoned Opinion Describing its Evidence against Lance Armstrong, Disputing, October 15, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | Remaining Procedural Steps, Disputing, August 29, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Announces Lance Armstrong’s Lifetime Ban from Sport and Forfeiture of Titles, Disputing, August 24, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Austin Federal Court Dismisses Lance Armstrong Lawsuit Against USADA, Disputing, August 20, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Federal Court to Rule Before August 23, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Hearing is Today, Disputing, August 10, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA’s Motion to Dismiss, Disputing, August 8, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Fairness of Arbitration Procedure, Disputing, August 8, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Jurisdiction, Disputing, August 7, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Existence of Agreement to Arbitrate, Disputing, August 6, 2012 The International Convention Against Doping in Sport of 2005, Disputing, August 2, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA’s Successful Arbitration Track Record, Disputing, August 1, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part VI | Right to Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Disputing, July 30, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part V |USADA Expedited Track, Disputing, July 26, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part IV | The Arbitration Hearing, Disputing, July 25, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part III | The Appointment of Arbitrators, Disputing, July 24, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part II | The Review Board Track, Disputing, July 23, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | USADA Files Motion to Dismiss Lance Armstrong’s Suit , Disputing, July 21, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Adjudication Process Part I | USADA ‘Results Management,’ Disputing, July 19, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Texas Federal Court Will Hear Lance Armstrong Case on August 10, Disputing, July 18, 2012 Armstrong v. Tygart | Lance Armstrong’s Suit and Restraining Order against USADA, Disputing, July 17, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | What is the USADA? Disputing, July 16, 2012 USADA Case against Lance Armstrong | USADA Allegations, Disputing, July 13, 2012 Lance Armstrong | The Doping Controversy Continues, Disputing, July 12, 2012 Jeremy Clare is a law clerk at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert. Jeremy received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2012 and received a B.A. from the University of South Carolina where he studied political science.