In re IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation

Summary

The Second Circuit held that the ADEA's judge-made "piggybacking rule" does not apply to arbitration and is not a substantive, non-waivable right, so an arbitration agreement's 300-day filing deadline is enforceable. The court also affirmed the sealing of confidential arbitration documents attached to a premature summary judgment motion, finding that the FAA's strong policy favoring arbitral confidentiality and counsel's attempt to evade the agreement outweighed the presumption of public access.

Holdings

1. The piggybacking rule does not apply to arbitration and is not a substantive right under the ADEA; therefore, the Timeliness Provision is enforceable.
2. The presumption of public access to judicial documents is outweighed by the FAA's strong policy favoring enforcement of arbitral confidentiality provisions and the impropriety of counsel's attempt to evade the agreement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the filing deadline in the separation agreements is unenforceable because it does not incorporate the piggybacking rule, a judge-made exception to the ADEA's administrative-exhaustion requirements.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting IBM's motion to seal confidential documents attached to plaintiffs' premature summary judgment motion.

Disposition

affirmed