The article discusses Peterson v. Minerva Surgical, a Supreme Court case regarding an arbitration award against a whistleblower, Dan Peterson. His claims involve using Minerva's patent filings to illustrate the company's knowledge of safety issues with its device. The case has received further attention following an amicus brief from Lift Our Voices, addressing forced arbitration and its role in obscuring workplace misconduct. The brief argues that the Tenth Circuit's deference to arbitrators undermines judicial oversight, raising concerns about the Federal Arbitration Act's implications for whistleblower protections and corporate accountability.
The Tenth Circuit's extreme deference to arbitrators has nullified meaningful judicial review, as emphasized in the amicus brief by Lift Our Voices. The brief cites the court's admissions of powerlessness, claiming federal courts "do not have discretion," "do not have power," and "cannot set aside an arbitration award based on legal error." This language reflects a worrying abdication of judicial authority outlined in Article III when the Federal Arbitration Act was enacted.
Peterson v. Minerva Surgical highlights the implications of using patent filings as evidence in whistleblower cases, focused on safety issues related to corporate misconduct.
Collection
[
|
...
]