Sterling Jewelers Employee Handbook

Currently, over 250 women and men are in arbitration with Sterling Jewelers over sexual harassment claims throughout Kay and Jared jewelry stores all over the country. The case was originally filed in arbitration in 2009 – over eight years ago. When this many employees are involved (and many others are witnesses), the. Please enter your User ID and Password, and click “Login”. Court Decisions Digest - Workplace Fairness. An overview of important court decisions affecting.

On July 24, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a federal district court’s approval for a class of roughly 69,000 women claiming that Sterling Jewelers, Inc. (“Sterling”) discriminated against them based on sex. The decision overturned a district court ruling that affirmed an arbitrator’s decision to let the women proceed to trial as a class in an arbitration. Plaintiffs initially filed a class action lawsuit in March 2008, alleging that Sterling’s practices and policies led to women being deliberately passed over for promotions and paid them less than their male cohorts. The case was sent to arbitration several months later under Sterling’s arbitration clause. In 2009, an arbitrator ruled that Sterling’s dispute resolution program did not specifically bar class actions and allowed claimants to seek class status.

From there, the case took a number of twists and turns, which we reported on more fully at the time. In June 2013, the employees moved for class certification. In February 2015, the arbitrator ruled that that the employees could proceed as a class in the arbitration. In November 2015, the district court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by certifying a class that included absent class members i.e., employees other than the named plaintiffs and those who have opted into the class. Sterling appealed.

Case 1:08-cv-00154-SRW Document 14 Filed Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, EVELYN FREEMAN, STERLING JEWELERS, INC., A CORPORATION, OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED AS KAY JEWELERS, LOCATION NUMBER 271, DOTHAN ALABAMA, AMY GOLDEN, ROBYNEE KNEW, JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROE, et al., Case No. 1:08-CV-154-SRW ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND COMPEL UTILIZATION OF THE RESOLVE PROGRAM WHICH INVOLVES BINDING ARBITRATION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendants Sterling Jewelers, Inc. (“Sterling”), Amy Golden, and Robynne Knew (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, submit this Reply in support of its Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Utilization of the Resolve Program Which Involves Binding Arbitration and Incorporated Memorandum of Law: I.

Preliminary Statement On March 12, 2008, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Utilization of the Resolve Program Which Involves Binding Arbitration Case 1:08-cv-00154-SRW Document 14 Filed Page 2 of 12 and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. In its motion, the defendants assert that the Court should stay the current proceedings and compel the plaintiff to arbitrate her claims alleged in the above-referenced action. The defendants submitted admissible evidence and legal authority establishing that Sterling has a binding and mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution program (“RESOLVE”) and that Freeman clearly agreed to the terms of this program.1 Defendants’ motion further establishes that the plaintiff’s claims are covered under the terms of Sterling’s mandatory ADR program, and therefore, the plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate her claims rather than proceed in a judicial forum. Adobe Photoshop Cs6 Brush Download Free. On April 3, 2008, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendants’ motion. Freeman contends that under Alabama law there is no valid agreement to arbitrate. More specifically, the plaintiff argues that the terms of the RESOLVE program do not constitute an offer but merely were “general statements of policy.” Plaintiff also contends that her participation in Steps 1 and 2 of Sterling’s RESOLVE Program did not manifest her assent to RESOLVE, but rather were efforts at settlement. As set forth in detail below, neither of these arguments has any factual or legal basis.