PeopleIndustriesPracticesOfficesEventsGiving BackDiversityCareersHome
Washington Appeals Court: Cost-Shifting Provisions in Employment Arbitration Agreement Invalid
By Michael J. Killeen and Sheehan Sullivan Weiss
08.10.09
Advisories Sign-Up
RSS Feeds

In a long-running battle involving the enforceability of an employment arbitration agreement between a Colorado company and its Washington state manager (Walters v. A.A.A. Waterproofing, Inc.), the Washington state Court of Appeals struck two provisions as invalid, but enforced the rest of the agreement.

Washington employers should consider these rulings before entering into arbitration. In many cases, arbitration may not be the best course of action. This advisory provides a brief analysis of the Walters case and offers some tips for employers who are considering going forward with an arbitration agreement.

Continue reading . . . 

 
RELATED PEOPLE
Michael J. (Mike) Killeen
Sheehan Sullivan Weiss
RELATED PRACTICES
Arbitration
Employment & Labor
Employment Litigation

This advisory is a publication of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Our purpose in publishing this advisory is to inform our clients and friends of recent legal developments. It is not intended, nor should it be used, as a substitute for specific legal advice as legal counsel may only be given in response to inquiries regarding particular situations.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

To unsubscribe, please send a message to DWTAlert@dwt.com