Steele v. LF Rothschild & Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88 Civ. 0023 (LLS).,88 Civ. 0023 (LLS). |
| Citation | 701 F. Supp. 407 |
| Parties | Linda F. STEELE v. L.F. ROTHSCHILD & CO., INCORPORATED. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Jeffrey Liddle, Paul T. Shoemaker, Harley D. Diamond, Liddle & O'Connor, New York City, for plaintiff.
Catherine A. Ludden, Gaston & Snow, New York City, for defendant.
Plaintiff sues under the Equal Pay Act, an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (1976) ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law § 194 (McKinney's 1986), asserting that defendant paid her less than males with positions comparable to hers. As part of their former employment relationship, the parties agreed to arbitrate any controversy or dispute relating to the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment.
The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S. C. §§ 1-14 ("FAA"), requires enforcement of agreements to arbitrate statutory claims, unless the party opposing arbitration shows, either from the statute's text or legislative history or from "an inherent conflict between arbitration and the statute's underlying purpose," Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2337, 96 L.Ed. 2d 185 (1987), that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of the judicial forum.
Plaintiff does not argue that such an intent is deducible from the statute's text or legislative history, but points to Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981), as holding that arbitral tribunals are incompetent for resolution of the public law and policy considerations underlying the FLSA. See id. at 743-46, 101 S.Ct. at 1446-48. Barrentine gave two reasons for that conclusion: the risk that a union might decide not to support an employee's arbitration claim under a collective bargaining agreement (such as was presented there), and limitations on arbitrators' powers and procedures that might disable them from vindicating substantial statutory rights.
The first Barrentine rationale does not apply here. The second has been effectively discarded as a ratio decidendi. See McMahon, 107 S.Ct. at 2340, concluding that arbitral tribunals are readily capable of handling factual and legal complexities, do not restrict substantive rights, and may be expected to follow the law.
The Supreme Court having held that arbitral tribunals can appropriately handle federal antitrust claims arising from international commercial transactions, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ciago v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
...303 F.3d 496, 506 (4th Cir. 2002); see Bailey, 346 F.3d at 824 (compelling arbitration of FLSA claims); Steele v. L.F. Rothschild & Co., Inc., 701 F.Supp. 407, 408 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (same). Plaintiff cites Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight, 450 U.S. 728, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981)......
-
Bynum v. Maplebear Inc.
...LaVoice v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 11–CV–2308, 2012 WL 124590, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2012) (same); Steele v. L.F. Rothschild & Co., Inc., 701 F.Supp. 407, 408 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (staying FLSA suit pending arbitration).Sutherland is the leading Second Circuit case addressing the arbitrabil......
-
Bynum v. Maplebear Inc., 15-CV-6263
...LaVoice v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. , No. 11–CV–2308, 2012 WL 124590, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2012) (same); Steele v. L.F. Rothschild & Co., Inc. , 701 F.Supp. 407, 408 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (staying FLSA suit pending arbitration); Moton , 2016 WL 616343 ; Cobarruviaz v. Maplebear, Inc. , 143 F.Supp......
-
Arrigo v. Blue Fish Commodities Inc
...324, 332 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (“Congress has not evinced an intention to preclude arbitration of FLSA claims”); Steele v. L.F. Rothschild & Co., 701 F.Supp. 407, 408 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (compelling arbitration of FLSA claims). 4 Thus, the Court holds that it must compel arbitration because (1) Arrigo ......