Legal Opinion

Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 4, 2001No. 20157-1-IIIPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchultheis, J.

— We are concerned today with federal preemption of a state law claim filed by workers who were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, requires enforcement of arbitration clauses in employment contracts, subject to certain exceptions. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105,121 S. Ct. 1302,149 L. Ed. 2d 234 (2001). The 11 appellants here1 were union pipe fitters working at the Hanford nuclear facility as employees of Fluor Daniel Northwest, Inc. In 1999, they filed a…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Sprewell v. Golden State WarriorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Adler v. Fred Lind ManorWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Witt v. Port of OlympiaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  3. Witt v. Port of OlympiaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  4. Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  5. Mount Adams School District v. CookWashington Supreme Court · 2003

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API