Oliveira`s initial action sought to challenge its classification as a contractor. He claimed that he was a business driver and an employee of Prime, but that he was wrongly considered an independent contractor. The Supreme Court did not rule on this case. Instead, they simply decided whether Oliveira could pursue its challenge in court instead of arbitration. Berryman, a strong control technician, was referred by a human resources company, Smith Management and Consulting LLC, to his client Newalta, a company in the oil and gas industry, to provide technical services. The technician filed a class action lawsuit against Newalta Environmental alleging that Newalta, he and other similar workers, wrongly labeled him and failed to pay them overtime in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Newalta filed a motion to force arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between Smith Management. and Berryman – a deal in which Newalta did not participate. In its November 1, 2018 decision, the court began its lengthy analysis by finding that this was Texas law and not Pennsylvania, as it was the legal choice provision in Berryman`s independent contractor contract with Smith Management. The judge found that under Texas law, there is a presumption of granting third-party status to non-contractual parties like Newalta. The court also found that Texas law requires a court to review the entire contract to determine whether an arbitration clause confers on a Smith Management customer third-party beneficiary status. The Tribunal held that Newalta was a third party beneficiary of the arbitration clause, since it contained in the contract between Berryman and Smith Consulting the following language: “The arbitration procedure applies to all claims covered, whether invoked by the contractor [Berryman] against the company [Smith Consulting] and/or.
Every customer of the company. No. 18-cv-793 (W.D. Pa. November 1, 2018) (added). For example, it was only last week that an appeled court ruled that an arbitration agreement was ruthless under State law when it required the claimant to bear half of the costs of the arbitration, limited the remedy, and contained an overly broad confidentiality provision that could affect the claimant`s ability to examine witnesses outside the formal investigative process. Ramos v. Superior Court of San Francisco County, No. A153390 (Cal.
Ct. of App. 2 November 2018). However, a recent decision of the Court of Appeal may have changed this situation. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FAA`s exception applies to transportation workers for employees and independent contractors. If this is the case, the impact on the concert economy could be massive. .