At page 264 Admissibility of arbitral awards in employment actions3 citing casesarbitral awards are per se admissible in subsequent employment actions
- Gautier v. Celanese, 143 F. Supp. 3d 429 (W.D. Va. 2015).published Id. at 264.
- Graef v. Chem. Leaman Corp, No. 95-40945 (5th Cir. June 2, 1997).published(arbitral awards are per se admissible in subsequent employment actions)
- James L. Graef v. Chem. Leaman Corp., 106 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 1997).published(arbitral awards are per se admissible in subsequent employment actions)
At page 265 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Gautier v. Celanese, 143 F. Supp. 3d 429 (W.D. Va. 2015).published Id. at 264.
- Williams v. Mead Coated Bd., Inc., 836 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Ala. 1993).publishedWhile “findings of the arbitrator with regard to discrimination issues are not binding on the court ... under the Steelivorkers Trilogy, the arbitral decision is final and binding to the extent it resolves questions of contractual rights.”…
Other citing cases
- Nelson v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 914 F. Supp. 643 (D. Me. 1996).published
- United States ex rel. Pensacola Constr. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 705 F. Supp. 306 (W.D. La. 1989).published
v.
Billy J. "b.j." Pinter, Black Gold Oil Company, Pinter Energy Company, and Pinter Oil Company
Maurice DAHL, Gary Clark, W. Grantham, Robert Daniele,
Charles Dahl, Dowayne Bockman, Ray Dilbeck, Richard Koon,
Art Overgarrd, Jack Yeager, Accra Tronics Seals Corp., and
Aaron Heller, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Billy J. "B.J." PINTER, Black Gold Oil Company, Pinter
Energy Company, and Pinter Oil Company,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 84-1970.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 14, 1988.
Braden W. Sparks, Newman, Shook & McManemin, Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellants.
John A. Spinuzzi, Denton, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; A. Joe Fish, Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before BROWN and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.[*]
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of this court (787 F.2d 985; 794 F.2d 1016) affirming the district court's judgment for plaintiff Dahl has been vacated by the Supreme Court. --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2063, 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988). The Court called for further findings to meet the standards it established for determining (1) the availability of an in pari delicto defense under Sec. 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, and (2) status as a statutory seller for purposes of imposing liability under Sec. 12(1). The cause is remanded to the district court for further findings consistent with the Supreme Court's holdings and for determination, if appropriate, of contribution to Pinter by Dahl. The district court may, if it chooses, take additional evidence on these issues.
REMANDED.
Due to his death on October 19, 1987, Judge Hill did not participate in this decision. This case is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 46(d)