On July 21, 2010 the Supreme Court of Wisconsin decided Sands v. Menard, Inc., 2008AP1703. The employment discrimination case made national headlines because an arbitral panel awarded Sands, former general counsel for Menard, $1.6 million which included $900,000 in punitive damages. Furthermore, the panel ordered Sand’s reinstatement to her position with a salary of $175,000 per year plus a bonus (she previously earned $70,000 per year). The district and appellate courts affirmed confirmation of the arbitral award. Read our discussion of the appellate court decision here.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the arbitration panel exceeded its powers because the reinstatement award was in violation of strong public policy. The court stated, “[i]n this case, we conclude that by accepting reinstatement, Sands would be forced to violate her ethical obligations as an attorney and the use of criminal attorneys for DWI could help people with criminal cases against them. The court vacated the reinstatement portion of the award and remanded the case to the circuit court for determination of an appropriate award of front pay. Under employment discrimination laws, front pay is a substitute for reinstatement.
In the dissent, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson said the decision undermines the arbitration process and improperly extends the authority of the courts. He noted that “[i]t may well be that in some cases a direct conflict will arise between the mostly state laws governing the attorney-client relationship and the mostly-federal statutes and case law governing employment discrimination, including the provisions for reinstatement.” He added, however, that “the place to resolve novel and emerging questions of law is not in a court’s review of a private arbitration award.”
Related posts:
- Court says Menard attorney should not get job, Scott Bauer, Associated Press (July 21, 2010)
- Citing Public Policy, Wis. High Court Bars Reinstatement of Fired Menard Lawyer, Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal News (July 21, 2010)
- Counsel can’t be reinstated: Front pay is proper remedy for discrimination, David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal (July 26, 2010)
Technorati Tags:
Related Posts
Jones v. Halliburton: Halliburton and KBR Withdraw U.S. Supreme Court Appeal
Where To, #MeToo?
Retaliatory Employment Arbitration
Article | Recent Supreme Court Arbitration Rulings Affect Employment and Class Action Arbitrations
Article | The Arbitration Fairness Index: Using a Public Rating System to Skirt the Legal Logjam and Promote Fairer and More Effective Arbitration of Employment and Consumer Disputes
Employment Arbitration | Jones v. Halliburton
