Since the Supreme Court confirmed that workplace discrimination dispute settlement agreements are valid, many employers who recognize the benefits of arbitration have imposed arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. The High Court authorized the application and appointed a retired judge as a sole arbitrator, contrary to the specific requirement set out in the compromise clause. Under the arbitration clause, only the complainant`s Gazetted Officer can be appointed as the sole arbitrator. However, contrary to this condition, the Supreme Court has appointed as an individual arbitrator a retired judge who can no longer be appointed an arbitrator for the independence and neutrality of the arbitrator, in accordance with Section 12 (5) of the Amendment Act, in 2015, with respect to the fact that an employee of the complainant can no longer be appointed an arbitrator. In light of the case law, the court also noted that, since Singh had accepted the amount in the full and final discharge, the case was no longer an entirely new or untouched matter, and Singh would not be eligible for arbitration, because there is no dispute for the reference to arbitration. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently accepted a creditor`s request to impose arbitration proceedings on an applicant`s argument that the arbitration agreement he had signed was void as a result of a bankruptcy court that took repayment of the loan under the agreement. The court found that the bankruptcy decision met the plaintiff`s debt obligations, not his other obligations under the agreement, such as his obligation to settle claims related to the agreement. Accordingly, the Court ruled in favour of the contractor finding that there was an arbitration dispute and the contract was not executed. In addition, all allegations in this area must be considered as part of the arbitration process. The Supreme Court clarified and approved a principle that is supported by logic (i.e. the principle of conformity and satisfaction). If a contract of « agreement and satisfaction » of the parties has been concluded, the arbitration agreement naturally also loses its enforceability. The Tribunal also found that the High Court did not have the right to appoint an independent arbitrator without resorting to the process of appointing an arbitrator agreed by the parties (i.e.

the appointment of the complainant`s Gazetted Officer). As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court`s decision and struck a challenge for the complainant to appoint an arbitrator under the compromise clause. The employee asked the court to refuse the application because it was « threatened » and his employment would be terminated if he did not sign the contract. The Court rejected this argument and found that « limiting employment to the adoption of a dispute settlement agreement, including those arising from civil rights, was itself not illegal. » While threats to terminate employment because they refuse to sign an agreement can be invoked as a compulsion to be alone, they are not enough. Editor`s Note: While it is legitimate to terminate an employee because he refuses to sign an arbitration agreement, should the employee, if he refuses to sign, take advantage of the threat? An employer should understand that every contract, including an arbitration agreement, must be supported by an appropriate consideration, that is, something valuable. While an employer could offer an employee additional compensation for the acceptance of conciliation and thus for the determination of the consideration, most employers rely on the maintenance of employment to support the agreement. While in New York, this is a valid consideration in support of an arbitration agreement, if the worker refuses to sign and the employer does not go through the dismissal, other employees who have also signed the agreement will use this as proof that the agreement has not been taken into account if the employer then tries to enforce the agreement against them.