Law | April 23, 2009 | 4 comments

End Forced Arbitration Now!

It's time to end forced arbitration. Companies must stop taking advantage of Americans and must be held accountable.



Most Americans don't know that they are bound by forced arbitration. Buried in the fine print of employment, cell phone, credit card, retirement account, home building, and nursing home contracts are mandatory arbitration clauses. Just by taking a job or buying a product or service, individuals are forced to give up their right to go to court if they are harmed by a company. Because the private system of forced arbitration benefits companies - and disadvantages consumers and employees - more and more industries are using forced arbitration to evade accountability.

In arbitration, there is no judge, jury or right to an appeal. The arbitrators do not have to follow the law, and there is no public review of decisions to ensure the arbitrator got it right. Moreover, contracts typically name the arbitration that must be used – the one preferred by the company.

Forced arbitration frequently costs more than taking a case to court, and can cost thousands of dollars. Individuals often have to pay a large fee simply to initiate the arbitration process. Then in order to arbitrate, individuals sometimes have to travel thousands of miles on their own dime. In the end, the loser (usually the individual) often pays the company’s legal fees.

Forced arbitration strips our most basic rights and makes many employee and consumer protections unenforceable. The laws that protect us from discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race, disability, and unequal pay for equal work, such as the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act, become meaningless and unenforceable in arbitration. Employees lose important protections for blowing the whistle on waste or fraud or for fighting retaliation for taking the family medical leave, for example.

Consumers cannot sue for negligence, defective products or scams. Even if a retirement account disappears, a home is dangerous and defective, or a loved one suffers harm in a nursing home, a forced arbitration clause means there is no right to take the company responsible to court.

People who have been harmed by discrimination, negligence, defective products or scams should not be forced into arbitration: they should have a choice.
  1. groups:
    Law
  2. tags:
    Law Arbitration
  3. credits:
    KylieStone Organizer, FairArbitrationNow.org
  4.     
    |

4 comments // End Forced Arbitration Now!

  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Forced arbitration is a crime against consumers. I know because I am in a dispute with Direct TV over a bogus cancellation charge. They have a mandatory arbitration clause in the customer agreement. You have to go through JAMS. It costs $480 just to start your case there against Direct TV. My dispute is over 180 dollars, which is much less than the fee to fight against the bogus charge. They bank on the fact that most people are not going to shell out $480 to fight a $180 bogus charge.

      They win by the sheer fact that most people won't pay the fee in order to fight. And, as the writer of this story says, they will win anyway when the arbitrator rules in their favor.

    • 3 years ago
  • cybexg
    • 0
      cybexg  
    • "In arbitration, there is no judge, jury or right to an appeal. The arbitrators do not have to follow the law,"

      Often, there is a process for appeal. Also, there are standards that the arbitrator is supposed to follow.

      "should not be forced into arbitration: they should have a choice. "

      Well, they could have not agreed to the contract that they signed in the first place. However, there are sometimes other ways to go around the agreement putting forth an arbitration clause. I'm doing that for one client right now (well, right now I'm on Current but you get the point).

    • 3 years ago
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  
    • cybexg:

      Your point about "should not have" flies in the face of the reality that we consumers do not have a choice in the wording or acceptability of contracts.

      Especially when there is a near monopoly on the goods or services. For example: Joe is in debt, and has now found a single job after six months. Does Joe really have a choice about rejecting employment because of an 'uncomfortable clause.' It would be typical lawyer BS to reply that "Joe should not have been so unemployable".

      It is all bent to be on the side of business. Big business, usually. Business has the ability to withstand a much longer battle than any individual. It's no contest.

      Let's get real about how low we really are on the economic and legal totempole.

    • 3 years ago
  • cybexg
    • 0
      cybexg  
    • cybexg:

      You make an excellent point. I concede that you are very correct.

      I was stuck in the abstraction when writing my comment. But I also feel that freedom to contract needs to be preserved (we've only made very minor erosions of it). So, I'm not really sure how to solve the problem.

    • 3 years ago
KylieStone
more from Law:

top videos