Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases  
Summaries and links to full text

LawMemo - First in Employment Law

Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Key Word Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Law Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

LawMemo Arbitration Blog 
 All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic  
Also read LawMemo Employment Law Blog

 


SCOTUS: Arbitrator, not court, decides whether arbitration agreement is unconscionable (5-4)
June 21, 2010 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The US Supreme Court decided Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson (US Supreme Ct 06/21/2010) this morning.

When he was hired, Jackson signed an agreement to arbitrate all future disputes. That agreement provided: "The Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable."

Jackson sued under 42 USC Section 1981, claiming race discrimination and retaliation. The trial court granted the employer's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The 9th Circuit (2-1) reversed.

Jackson argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and that the issue of unconscionability must be decided by a court rather than an arbitrator.

The US Supreme Court held (5-4) that under the Federal Arbitration Act, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator.

The agreement contained two arbitration provisions, one to arbitrate employment disputes, and a second to give the arbitrator exclusive authority to resolve the "gateway" question of whether the agreement is enforceable. The employer sought enforcement of the second provision, which is severable from the rest of the contract. Jackson did not challenge this second provision specifically, so the Court treated his challenge as a challenge to the whole contract. It is well settled that a challenge to the whole contract is an issue to be resolved by the arbitrator rather than the court.

The DISSENT argued that the majority improperly applied the rule of severability. Jackson did challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement and should not have to object to "the particular line in the agreement" that purports to assign the validity issue to the arbitrator.



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion: Cert granted
May 24, 2010 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The US Supreme Court today granted certiorari in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which will test whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state unconscionability law.

Plaintiffs brought a class action claim that a telephone company’s offer of a “free” phone to anyone who signs up for its service is fraudulent to the extent the phone company charges the new subscriber sales tax on the retail value of each “free” phone. The phone company demanded the plaintiffs’ claims be submitted to individual arbitration, pointing to the arbitration clause of the written agreement, which arbitration clause requires arbitration, but bars class actions.

The 9th Circuit held that (1) the phone company's class action waiver clause is unconscionable under California law, and (2) The Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt California unconscionability law.

Case below: Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC (9th Cir 10/27/2009)

Official docket sheet 

Certiorari granted May 24, 2010.

Oral argument: To be scheduled, probably Fall 2010.

Question presented:   

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts States from conditioning the enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the availability of particular procedures - here, class-wide arbitration - when those procedures are not necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able to vindicate their claims. 

Certiorari Documents: 

Counsel:



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


Imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to it violates Federal Arbitration Act (5-3)
April 27, 2010 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The US Supreme Court has decided Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds (US Supreme Ct 04/27/2010)

The parties in this case are parties to an international maritime contract that contains an arbitration clause. The contracts are silent as to whether arbitration is permissible on behalf of a class, and the parties submitted that issue to arbitration. A panel of arbitrators decided that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration. The District Court vacated the award on the ground that it was made in "manifest disregard" of the law. The 2nd Circuit reversed.

The US Supreme Court held (5-3) that imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

(1) The arbitrators exceeded their powers by imposing their own policy choice instead of identifying and applying a rule of decision derived from the FAA or from maritime or New York law. (2) Imposing class arbitration in this case is inconsistent with the FAA. The Court restated the principles that arbitration "is a matter of consent, not coercion," that "private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms," and that parties are "generally free to structure their arbitration agreements as they see fit." Based on these principles, "parties may specify WITH WHOM they chose to arbitrate." [Emphasis in original] Because the parties stipulated that there was no agreement on class arbitration, the parties cannot be compelled to submit to class arbitration.

The DISSENT argued that the arbitrators' "partial award" was not ripe for judicial review. On the merits, the dissent would have upheld the arbitrators due to the strict limitation the FAA places on judicial review of arbitral awards.



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson: Details and briefs
April 19, 2010 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

On Monday, April 26, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson.

Here is the question presented:

Is the district court required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this "gateway" issue to the arbitrator for decision?

Here are the briefs that have been filed:



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


Case-by-case determination of ability to pay arbitration fees and costs
March 31, 2010 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

Brady v. The Williams Capital Group (New York 03/25/2010)

Brady brought an Article 78 proceeding to compel the employer to pay the arbitrator's fee with respect to her Title VII wrongful discharge claim based on sex and race discrimination. The trial court dismissed the petition holding the fee-sharing provision of the arbitration agreement, rather than the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) "employer-pays" rule, governed. The New York Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals remitted the matter to the trial court for a hearing on Brady's financial ability to share the costs of arbitration.

The court was mindful of the strong state policy favoring arbitration agreements and the equally strong policy requiring the invalidation of such agreements when they contain terms that could preclude a litigant from vindicating her statutory rights in the arbitral forum.

The court held that in this context, the issue of a litigant's financial ability is to be resolved on a case-by-case basis and that the inquiry should at minimum consider the following questions:

(1) whether the litigant can pay the arbitration fees and costs;

(2) what is the expected cost differential between arbitration and litigation in court; and

(3) whether the cost differential is so substantial as to deter the bringing of claims in the arbitral forum.

My view: This is the right way to do it, although some other courts seem to be confused by all of this.



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


Supreme Court fast-tracks arbitration case
January 19, 2010 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The US Supreme Court has placed Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson on a "fast track," meaning that briefing will be expedited so the Court can hear the case this term - probably in April.

Petitioner's brief is due February 25.

Respondent's brief is due March 25.

Question presented:

Is the district court required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this "gateway" issue to the arbitrator for decision?

[Details]



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


Does arbitrator decide whether arbitration agreement is unconscionable?
January 18, 2010 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear another employment arbitration case. The issue is whether it is for the court, or an arbitrator, to decide whether agreement to arbitrate is unconscionable.

Jackson sued under 42 USC Section 1981, claiming race discrimination and retaliation. The trial court granted the employer's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The 9th Circuit (2-1) reversed. 

When he was hired, Jackson signed an agreement to arbitrate all future disputes. That agreement provided: 

"The Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable." 

Jackson argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and that the issue of unconscionability must be decided by a court rather than an arbitrator. 

The 9th Circuit held that "where, as here, a party challenges an arbitration agreement as unconscionable, and thus asserts that he could not meaningfully assent to the agreement, the threshold question of unconscionability is for the court." 

Case below: Jackson v. Rent-A-Center West (9th Cir 09/09/2009)

Official docket sheet 

Certiorari granted January 15, 2010.

Oral argument:  Not yet scheduled. 


Question presented:   

Is the district court required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this "gateway" issue to the arbitrator for decision?

Certiorari Documents:


Counsel:



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


US Supreme Ct argument on class action arbitration
September 28, 2009 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The US Supreme Court announced today the schedule for oral arguments in Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. - December 9 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time.

The parties in this case are parties to international maritime contracts that contain arbitration clauses. The contracts are silent as to whether arbitration is permissible on behalf of a class of contracting parties. A panel of arbitrators, tasked with deciding whether that silence permitted or precluded class arbitration, received evidence and briefing from both sides. The arbitrators issued an award deciding that the contracts permit class arbitration.

Stolt-Nielsen petitioned the United States District Court to vacate the award. That court did vacate the award on the ground that the award was made in manifest disregard of the law.

The 2nd Circuit reversed. The 2nd Circuit applied the rule that courts vacate arbitration awards in the rare instances in which "the arbitrator knew of the relevant [legal] principle, appreciated that this principle controlled the outcome of the disputed issue, and nonetheless willfully flouted the governing law by refusing to apply it." Using this principle, the court found that the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard a rule of federal maritime law, and did not manifestly disregard New York State law.

The official "Question Presented" is:

In Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003), this Court granted certiorari to decide a question that had divided the lower courts: whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits the imposition of class arbitration when the parties’ agreement is silent regarding class arbitration. The Court was unable to reach that question, however, because a plurality concluded that the arbitrator first needed to address whether the agreement there was in fact "silent." That threshold obstacle is not present in this case, and the question presented here--which continues to divide the lower courts--is the same one presented in Bazzle:

Whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.

The briefs are collected here.



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


Class action suit against National Arbitration Forum
September 17, 2009 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

A class action suit has been filed against National Arbitration Forum.
Text of complaint: Magnone v. Accretive LLC, United States District Court, Central District of California

A press release from the law firm filing the complaint:

New York, NY — September 15, 2009 — The law firm of Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who used NAF's arbitration services during the period from June 1, 2006 to the present, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The complaint is available from the Court or can be viewed at Milberg LLP’s website at www.milberg.com.

Until recently, NAF held itself out as a leading forum for consumer arbitrations, which is how many consumer debt disputes are resolved. An arbitration forum must above all be impartial, so that consumers can be confident that their disputes with creditors (e.g., banks, credit card companies, phone companies, etc.) will be heard fairly, as would be the case if the dispute was resolved by a court of law. The class action lawsuit filed against NAF and related parties alleges that NAF has misled consumers for years in this regard because it was owned by and/or beholden to a debt collection agency and debt collection law firm, such that in reality it was a debt collector, not a neutral forum for resolving disputes by the debt collection industry against consumers. The result of these alliances was near perfect success rates by debt collectors against consumers in NAF arbitrations.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that NAF, National Arbitration Forum, LLC (“NAF LLC”), Mann Bracken, LLP (“Mann Bracken”), Accretive LLC (“Accretive”), Agora Fund I GP, LLC, Axiant, LLC, and Forthright Solutions (collectively “Defendants”), falsely held NAF out to be independent and unaffiliated with any persons or entities within or outside the collections industry and falsely presented its arbitration services as neutral. According to the complaint, Mann Bracken is a law firm that claims to specialize in consumer debt collection matters, but is a debt collector in its own right. NAF and Mann Bracken are both owned by Defendant Accretive who owns and controls both NAF and Mann Bracken, and their related entities. According to the complaint, NAF is now “under siege by local and state prosecutors for working alongside creditors, rubber-stamping illegitimate arbitration awards against consumers, deceiving the courts and the public, and undermining the integrity of the arbitration system.”

The complaint specifically alleges that NAF maintained a near perfect success rate -- ruling in favor of business entities -- by engaging in improper, deceptive and corrupt acts, including: (a) establishing incentives for arbitrators to favor debt collectors over consumers; (b) disregarding consumers’ evidence and/or arguments; (c) overlooking and violating its own Code of Procedure to benefit debt collectors, and ultimately, large creditors; (d) disregarding creditors’ lack of evidence; and (e) failing to provide the bona fide arbitration services it promised to consumers. The complaint also alleges that NAF breached its contractual obligation to provide arbitration services to consumers, and that NAF directly benefitted from, and was unjustly enriched by the contractual breaches.

Thanks to Disputing, where you can find more interesting background.



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


Federal Service Impasses Panel appointments
September 16, 2009 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The President has named seven highly-qualified individuals to the Federal Service Impasses Panel – Federal Labor Relations Authority:

Mary Jacksteit, Chair, Federal Service Impasses Panel – Federal Labor Relations Authority
Mary Jacksteit has over 20 years of experience in mediation, facilitation and negotiation working for non-profit organizations, government agencies and community organizations. Jacksteit previously served on the Federal Service Impasses Panel for seven years during the Clinton Administration. She began her legal career as a labor attorney for the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, where she later served as Deputy General Counsel. In the late 1980’s she began practicing as a labor arbitrator in the public and private sectors, serving on panels of the American Arbitration Association, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and U.S. Postal Service. For 10 years, she worked at Search for Common Ground - a conflict resolution organization. Since 2007 she has been associated with the Public Conversations Project in Watertown, Massachusetts and has maintained a private practice focused on community, public policy, organizational planning, and conflict management. Jacksteit has a law degree from Georgetown Law School, an M.S. from George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, and a B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh.

Martin H. Malin, Member, Federal Service Impasses Panel – Federal Labor Relations Authority
Martin H. Malin is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Institute for Law and the Workplace at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology. He teaches courses in labor law, collective bargaining, arbitration, public sector labor law, employment law, contracts and jurisprudence. Malin has published five books, including Public Sector Employment: Cases and Materials (West 2004), the leading law school casebook on public sector labor law; and more than 60 articles on labor law and dispute resolution. An active arbitrator and mediator since 1984, Malin just completed a three-year term on the Board of Governors of the National Academy of Arbitrators and is a fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. He also serves on the Executive Committee of The Labor Law Group and is a past chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Labor Relations and Employment Law. From 2004 - 2008, Malin served as Reporter for the Association of Labor Relations Agencies’ Neutrality Project. He was the principal drafter of ALRA’s Neutrality Report, a mini-treatise on labor board and mediation agency impartiality. During the mid 1980s, he served as a consultant to Illinois’ public employment labor boards and drafted the regulations implementing Illinois’ newly-enacted public sector labor relations acts. Malin joined the Chicago-Kent faculty in 1980, after teaching at Ohio State University and serving as Law Clerk to U.S. District Judge Robert DeMascio in Detroit. He holds a J.D. from George Washington University and a B.A. from Michigan State University.

Barbara B. Franklin, Member, Federal Service Impasses Panel – Federal Labor Relations Authority
Barbara B. Franklin is an arbitrator and mediator in Washington, D.C. She serves on arbitration rosters administered by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the American Arbitration Association and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. She is a mediator for the U.S. Court of Appeals and District Court for the District of Columbia. Since 1999, she has served as a Public Member of the D.C. Police and Firefighters Retirement Board, a position that is appointed by the Mayor of D.C. Prior to her retirement from the Federal Government in 1997, Ms. Franklin was Chief Counsel to Members Pamela Talkin and Donald S. Wasserman of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. From 1977 to 1989, she served as a staff attorney and then supervisory attorney for the National Labor Relations Board in the Office of General Counsel (Division of Advice). Franklin received her J.D. from The Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, where she was Associate Editor of the Law Review, and her B.A. from Northwestern University.

Marvin E. Johnson, Member, Federal Service Impasses Panel – Federal Labor Relations Authority
Marvin E. Johnson is a nationally recognized mediator and arbitrator of public and private disputes. Johnson serves on the rosters of the JAMS Resolution Experts, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, the American Arbitration Association, and Accormend Associates. He served 16 years as Assistant and Associate Professor of Labor Relations, Business Law and Conflict Management at Bowie State University where he founded the Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Johnson’s previous appointment to the Federal Service Impasses Panel by a Democratic President and his appointment to the Foreign Service Grievance Board by a Republican Secretary of State are testaments to his impartiality and his dispute resolution expertise. In addition, he was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to serve on the Maryland State Labor Relations Board and by the Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals to serve on the Maryland Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission. Johnson is a member of the International Academy of Mediators, the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution, the Association for Conflict Resolution, the American College of Civil Trial Mediators, the Society of Labor and Employee Relations Professionals and Mediators Beyond Borders. He received his J.D. degree from Catholic University, his M.S. degree in Industrial Relations from the University of Wisconsin, and his B.B.A. degree from Kent State University.

Thomas E. Angelo, Member, Federal Service Impasses Panel – Federal Labor Relations Authority
Thomas Angelo began his career as an attorney with the Solicitor’s Office at the U.S. Department of Labor, in Washington D.C. He joined the National Treasury Employees Union in 1972, serving as Associate General Counsel in Washington D.C. and San Francisco. In 1981, he was named Regional Attorney for the San Francisco Region of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Angelo became a full time arbitrator in 1983 and is a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators. He serves as a panel arbitrator for many private and public sector parties. Angelo is a graduate of Willamette University and Willamette University College of Law.

Edward F. Hartfield, Member, Federal Service Impasses Panel – Federal Labor Relations Authority
Edward F. Hartfield is the Executive Director of the National Center for Dispute Settlement (NCDS). He has devoted his entire 36-year career to serving as an impartial party as mediator, arbitrator, facilitator, election administrator, trainer, neutral convener, and ombudsman. Hartfield has served as Commissioner with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and State Mediator for the New Jersey Office of Dispute Settlement. He was previously appointed by President Clinton to the Federal Service Impasses Panel, a seven-person panel established to resolve disputes in the Federal Government. Hartfield has also served as the International President of the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR) and currently is Vice President of the Detroit Chapter of the Labor and Employment Research Association (LERA). Hartfield serves on the Michigan State Court Administrative Office Task Force on Mediation Confidentiality and previously served on the Michigan Supreme Court Task Force on Mediation. He received a Masters in International Relations from the University of Detroit and B.A. from Oberlin College.

Don Wasserman, Member, Federal Service Impasses Panel – Federal Labor Relations Authority
Don Wasserman has been a labor relations professional his entire career. Since 2001, he has been an arbitrator/mediator, specializing in all levels of the public sector. He is a Member of the D.C. Public Employee Relations Board (DC PERB) and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Employee Relations Council (MWAA-ERC). Wasserman is also on the labor rosters of the American Arbitration Association, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and National Mediation Board. In December 1995, he was appointed by former President Clinton as a Member and then as Chairman of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), where he served until 2001. Wasserman began his career at the Communications Workers of America and then the International Association of Machinists. From 1967 until his appointment to FLRA, Wasserman held various top positions at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees where he served as Director of the Department of Collective Bargaining and Assistant to the President. His major responsibilities included serving as chief negotiator in establishing initial collective bargaining agreements with several state governments and large local governments. He frequently testified before legislative bodies on key collective bargaining issues such as bargaining unit structure and impasse resolution procedures, as well as matters including government reinvention/redesign and civil service reform. Wasserman received an M.B.A from the University of Pennsylvania and a B.S. from Temple University.



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


AAA confirms: No more consumer debt arbitration
July 23, 2009 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

We reported yesterday that the American Arbitration Association (AAA) announced that it will stop administering consumer debt collection arbitrations.

Here is the AAA press release:

Contact: Wayne Kessler, Vice President, Corporate Communications American Arbitration Association (212) 716-3975 kesslerw@adr.org


The American Arbitration Association® Calls For
Reform of Debt Collection Arbitration

Largest Arbitration Services Provider Will Decline to Administer Consumer Debt Arbitrations until Fairness Standards are Established

New York, NY– (July 23, 2009) – The American Arbitration Association (AAA), the world’s largest conflict management and dispute resolution services organization, today recommended in a House subcommittee hearing that the process surrounding consumer debt collection arbitration needs major reform and recommended a national policy committee to identify and research solutions. AAA said it will not administer any consumer debt collection programs until those solutions are determined.

AAA senior vice president Richard Naimark told the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the AAA “has not administered significant numbers of debt collection arbitrations relative to some other organizations,” and has not handled any since June after it concluded a single high-volume program. However, he said that AAA had independently reviewed areas of the process and concluded that it had some weaknesses. As a result of that review, it is evident to the AAA that “a series of important fairness and due process concerns must be addressed and resolved before we will proceed with the administration of any consumer debt collection programs.” According to Mr. Naimark, areas needing attention from the national policy committee include consumer notification, arbitrator neutrality, pleading and evidentiary standards, respondents’ defenses and counterclaims, and arbitrator training and recruitment.

“AAA has been working with the Domestic Policy Subcommittee to review potential improvements in consumer debt collection arbitration procedures for some time. We believe that arbitration can play a major role in consumer debt collection disputes. A national policy committee dedicated to meaningful reform can enhance an array of due process elements so that there is deeper fairness and transparency. Consumers deserve an alternative to litigation, but they also need to be able to trust that option. Our goal will be to achieve that trust,” Mr. Naimark said after the hearing.

“We have been studying this issue for some time. We made our decision to impose a moratorium on administering consumer debt arbitration independently and not at the behest of any outside entity as has been claimed. We commend the Domestic Policy Subcommittee for its initiatives to protect consumers in debt collection cases, and we will continue to work with it willingly and enthusiastically,” Mr. Naimark said.

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release

About the American Arbitration Association
The global leader in conflict management since 1926, the American Arbitration Association is a not-for-profit, public service organization committed to the resolution of disputes through the use of arbitration, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, democratic elections and other voluntary procedures. In 2008, 138,447 cases were filed with the Association in a full range of matters including commercial, construction, labor, employment, insurance, international and claims program disputes. Through 30 offices in the United States, Ireland, Mexico, and Singapore, the AAA provides a forum for the hearing of disputes, rules and procedures and a roster of impartial experts to resolve cases. Find more information online at www.adr.org.

###




LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


What? AAA stops consumer debt collection arbitration
July 22, 2009 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The American Arbitration Association (AAA) announced yesterday that it will stop administering consumer debt collection arbitrations.

The Wall Street Journal quotes an unnamed AAA official as saying that AAA will stop taking these cases "until some standards or safeguards are established."

This announcement comes on the heels of a lawsuit against the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) and a decision by NAF to stop taking similar cases.

Both organizations have recently posted self-laudatory statements on their web sites, praising the fairness and effectiveness of arbitration proceedings between consumers and corporations.

These two organizations are quite different from each other. NAF is a for-profit close-held company. AAA is non-profit of long standing.

My view:

The two organizations seem to have different reasons for their actions. NAF has been hit with law suits, the most recent claiming undisclosed overlaps in ownership between NAF and some of its corporate customers, and it looks like they spend more on defense than they earn on the arbitrations. AAA is now suggesting there is a actually a fairness issue in these cases, citing the need for "some standards or safeguards."

Whatever the reasons, this is a major development. Many phone companies and credit-card issuers insert arbitration clauses in their contracts. So what will happen now?



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.


LawMemo.Com

EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court |  Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. 
It does not include Key Word Search.