Arbitration is a way to resolve disputes with a paid decision-maker, called an arbitrator. The arbitrator`s decision is binding and neither party to the dispute may appeal or avail themselves of the state`s judicial system. The decision is private, which means that no one else will benefit from a successful case. One of the main advantages of arbitration agreements from the perspective of litigation and arbitration in general is that they provide consumers, employees and other claimants with an effective way to obtain compensation for a large number of claims when civil proceedings are not practical. Pursuing a lawsuit can be an expensive and time-consuming undertaking for anyone, and may simply be an unrealistic option if an alleged violation is individualized in nature and too modest in potential value to seek the help of a lawyer. Some studies suggest that even about 20 years ago, lawyers often did not take on a case unless the expected value of the claim was at least $60,000.1 Recent reports suggest that lawyers for some plaintiffs will not take over a case worth less than $200,000.2 Plaintiffs` lawyers are also risk-averse and generally do not accept a case worth less than $200,000.2 Plaintiffs` lawyers are also risk-averse and generally do not accept a case. business without a high probability of success. those seeking arbitration may also benefit from a simpler and more convenient method of dispute resolution. ==References=====External links===The Supreme Court stated: « The advantages of arbitration are manifold: it is generally cheaper and faster than litigation; it may have simpler rules of procedure and evidence; it generally minimizes hostility and interferes with fewer current and future cases between the parties; it is often more flexible in terms of scheduling the times and locations of hearings and detection devices. 5 Time Magazine published an article about an Alabama nursing home resident who was barred from prosecution after she was allegedly raped at the facility one night. An arbitration agreement signed by the resident prior to the dispute forced her to arbitrate, in which nursing home residents typically perform poorly, and the arbitrator ruled against her. According to a proposal from the Trump administration, nursing homes will be able to force all residents to arbitrate to resolve disputes, reducing residents` chances of getting justice if they become victims. Scalia`s statement examines arbitration in a logical vacuum, completely distinct from the realities of modern class actions and arbitration agreements.
On the one hand, the Federal Arbitration Act, enacted in 1925, was not designed for modern consumer, tort, or employment class actions. In fact, the kind of arbitration imagined was between merchants with relatively equal bargaining power who were trying to settle factual disputes under the customs of their industries. An example could be a goods wholesaler entering into an agreement with a retailer to sell a particular product. Both parties know what they are getting into, are more or less equally savvy, and probably have the opportunity to go elsewhere to run their business. The arbitrator is an independent third party. He will listen to the arguments put forward by both parties and examine the evidence. Sometimes the procedure will be very formal, as if the matter were decided by a court. After hearing all the information, the arbitrator makes a decision that is legally binding on the parties. This distinguishes arbitration from other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as mediation. This Huffington Post article eloquently and succinctly explains why pre-dispute arbitration agreements are a terrible deal for nursing home residents and why we need a federal ban. 5 {5} Z.B.
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 6 P.3d 669, 682 n.8 (Cal. 2000) (emphasizing that « [certain arbitration clauses may not be required] in situations where an employer and employee knowingly and voluntarily enter into an arbitration agreement after a dispute has arisen. In such cases, employees are free to determine which trade-offs between the effectiveness of the arbitrator and formal procedural protection best protect their legal rights. (Emphasis added)). See also United States Senate Banking Committee, Hous. & Urban Affairs, Summary of the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act 2002, available under banking.senate.gov (with the aim of prohibiting the use of pre-litigation arbitration clauses in costly mortgages, while preserving the possibility of post-litigation arbitration agreements). Everyone knows the universal truth: nothing is perfect. Pre-dispute arbitration is not perfect, but neither is the civil litigation system. Overall, however, the benefits of pre-litigation arbitration agreements far outweigh the perceived concerns when looking at the bigger picture.
Excluding the use of these agreements is not good public policy. Individuals would face greater burdens and costs if they sought access to justice, performed worse, and resolved disputes at a much slower pace. 6 {6} See Linda J. Demain & Deborah Hensler, « Volunteering » to Arbitrate Through Predispute Arbitration Clauses: The Average Consumer`s Experience, 67 Law & Contemp. Probs. 55, 73–74 (2004) (« Given the lack of information available to consumers in pre-litigation arbitration clauses and the difficulty of obtaining and deciphering such clauses, it is likely that most consumers do not know which rights they retain and which rights they have waived after a dispute has arisen. »); Christine Reilly, Achieving Knowing and Voluntary Consent in Pre-Dispute Mandatory Arbitration Agreements at the Contracting Stage of Employment, 90 Calif. L. Rev. 1203, 1225 (2002) (Empirical research shows that employees « do not understand the remedial and procedural consequences of consent to arbitration » and that « few know what they are not doing »). See also Paul D.
Carrington & Paul Y. Castle, The Revocability of Contract Provisions Controlling Resolution of Future Disputes Between the Parties, 67 Law & Contemp. Probs. 207, 218 (2004). Myth #1: Pre-litigation arbitration agreements are categorically unfair because they are entered into by consumers, employees, or others with unequal bargaining power. In « binding arbitration, » the arbitrator has the power to make a final, binding decision on the merits of a claim, subject to the very limited judicial review provided by the FAA or state law to vary or set aside the award.7 There is no other right to appeal the arbitrator`s decision and the consumer does not have the right to: repeat the action in court. If the award is upheld by the court, the award will have the same effect as a court decision. Such flexibility at a lower cost can significantly change the lives of applicants. Prominent lawyer Learned Hand wisely noted that a person should « fear a trial that goes beyond almost anything but illness and death. » 6 In contrast, in arbitration, a claimant never has to take his or her family or work time to meet with a lawyer, sit down to testify, or even appear in person on a case to obtain recovery. .
Commentaires récents