Reid v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

188 A.D.2d 350, 590 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13708, 60 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 632

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 350 (Reid v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reid v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 188 A.D.2d 350, 590 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13708, 60 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered March 19, 1992, which, in an action to recover damages for sex discrimination, granted defendants’ motion for a stay pending arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A registered securities representative who was required to sign a Form U-4 as a condition of employment can be compelled to arbitrate a State-based sex discrimination claim under the Federal Arbitration Act (see, Gilmer v Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 US —, —, n 2, 111 S Ct 1647, 1651-1652). As we recently held, the "decisions in Gilmer and postGilmer case law are controlling” and bind this Court to apply the Federal Arbitration Act as interpreted therein (Fletcher v Kidder, Peabody & Co., 184 AD2d 359, 362). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ. [See, 154 Misc 2d 756.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered March 19, 1992, which, in an action to recover damages for sex discrimination, granted defendants’ motion for a stay pending arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A registered securities representative who was required to sign a Form U-4 as a condition of employment can be compelled to arbitrate a State-based sex discrimination claim under the Federal Arbitration Act (see, Gilmer v Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 US —, —, n 2, 111 S Ct 1647, 1651-1652). As we recently held, the "decisions in Gilmer and postGilmer case law are controlling” and bind this Court to apply the Federal Arbitration Act as interpreted therein (Fletcher v Kidder, Peabody & Co., 184 AD2d 359, 362). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ. [See, 154 Misc 2d 756.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 350, 590 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13708, 60 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-goldman-sachs-co-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack