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 […]

As discussed here, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) revised Arbitration Rules became effective on January 1, 2012. ( The new Rules may be downloaded here.) McDermott Will & Emery attorneys B. Ted Howes and Stefano Mechelli provide an overview of the new Rules: The most important improvement to the efficiency of the ICC Arbitration Rules is the new, mandatory case management conference provision (new Article 24), which requires that the arbitrators convene a case management conference at the outset of the arbitration, with the parties present, both to establish a procedural timetable for the arbitration and to adopt efficient case management techniques (new Article 24 (1)). Far from simply imposing another formality on the arbitral process, this change mandates an entirely new approach in which the arbitrators and the parties must discuss and determine the most efficient way of proceeding with the arbitration. This change is supported by numerous other new efficiencies in the rules, including a new rule requiring that arbitrators confirm their availability in writing before agreeing to handle a case (new Article 11(2)), a new rule requiring both parties and arbitrators “to make every effort to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner” (new Article 22(1)), and a new rule allowing arbitrators to request the attendance of the in-house lawyers of the parties at case management conferences (new Article 24 (4)) Continue reading here. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law

The ABA Section of Dispute Resolution will host its Fourteenth Annual Spring Conference in Washington DC from April 18 – 21, 2012. The theme of the conference builds on the Section’s initiative this year of leading by promoting civil discourse: How do we as dispute resolvers lead critical, emotion charged discussions civilly working with people in opposite corners to collaborate and come to consensus? Find the conference schedule here. Registration is available here. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

In Americo Life, Inc. v. Myer, No. 10-0734 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011), Americo Life, Inc., Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Great Southern Life Insurance Company, the Ohio State Life Insurance Company, and National Farmers’ Union Life Insurance Company (hereinafter “Americo”) and Robert L. Myer and Strider Marketing Group, Inc. (hereinafter “Myer”) contracted for Americo’s purchase of several insurance companies from Myer. Their agreement provided that any dispute would be referred to three arbitrators. Each party was to appoint one arbitrator and the two arbitrators would select the third. It further provided that each arbitrator “shall be a knowledgeable, independent businessperson or professional.” The contract also called for arbitration by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) according to the AAA commercial arbitration rules. At the time of the underlying dispute between the parties, the AAA rules provided that “[a]ny arbitrator shall be impartial and independent … and shall be subject to disqualification for (i) partiality or lack of independence ….” In an arbitration dispute before the AAA for breach of contract and wrongfully withheld payment, Myer argued to the AAA that Americo’s selected arbitrator was not impartial (as required by the AAA rules) and therefore should be removed. Americo responded their selected arbitrator was, in fact, impartial. The AAA agreed with Myer and removed the arbitrator from the arbitration panel. The panel found in favor of Myer and Americo filed a motion to vacate the award. The trial court granted Americo’s motion on the ground that its arbitrator was improperly stricken from the panel. The court of appeals, however, reversed, holding that Americo had waived its arguments by not presenting them to the AAA. The issue before the Texas Supreme Court was whether Americo waived its objection to the removal of the arbitrator it selected. The court said that the record demonstrated that Americo did not waive its objections. Americo had argued that the AAA requirements did not apply, that the only applicable requirements were that the arbitrators be knowledgeable and independent businesspersons or professionals, (as stated in the contract) and that its arbitrator met those qualifications. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for the court of appeals to consider whether the AAA requirements apply. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration