A blog for employment lawyers, human resources professionals, and union representatives.
This page contains entries under the topic: "Arbitrator bias" | Main
June 26, 2005
Ryan's certiorari petition
The 6th Circuit refused to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration agreement signed by employees of Ryan's Family Steakhouses' multi-state restaurant chain. Walker v. Ryan's (6th Cir 03/09/2005). Ryan's has petitioned [here] the US Supreme Court for a writ a certiorari.
Ryan's lost on several issues, and the petition invites the Supreme Court to correct them. The formal "Questions Presented" section of the petition raises four main points, claiming that the Court of Appeals improperly:
- Used a heightened "knowing and voluntary" standard for waiver of a jury trial.
- Used extraordinary scrutiny to declare the agreements unconscionable under state law, thus showing hostility to arbitration agreements.
- Applied the law of Tennessee to agreements that were entered into in other states.
- Invalidated the agreements based on a perceived potential for structural bias in the arbitration system.
Lawyers on the petition: Michael S. Pitts (counsel of record) and E. Grantland Burns of Nexsen Pruet Adams Kleemeir; David E. Nagle of LeClair Ryan.
My view:
- The real question in a petition for a writ of certiorari is whether a case merits the precious time and attention of nine Supreme Court Justices. Let's assume the 6th Circuit was wrong on all four points raised in the petition. In order to win, Ryan's must prevail on all four of them. That makes this case somewhat cumbersome for the Court, which prefers to decide single-issue cases.
- The Court is usually looking for cases that involve a split of authority between the Circuits, and Ryan's does not make a good case for such a split.
- Perhaps the Court will see this as case as being important because the 6th Circuit used a variety of legal devices to circumvent the core policy of the Federal Arbitration Act, which was to eliminate judicial hostility toward arbitration agreements.
Posted June 26, 2005 by Ross Runkel, Editor at LawMemo, publisher of Employment Law Memo. Try it.
March 09, 2005
How not to set up an arbitration system
Ryan's Family Steak Houses set up an interesting three-party arbitration arrangement. (1) Potential employees signed an agreement with Employment Dispute Services, Inc. (EDSI), an arbitration service-provider, agreeing to use EDSI as an arbitration forum. In theory, Ryan's could enforce that contract as a third-party-beneficiary. (2) Ryan's and EDSI had a contract in which Ryan's agreed to use EDSI to resolve employee disputes. In theory, an employee could enforce that contract as a third-party-beneficiary.
The 6th Circuit found so many flaws in this deal that I cannot list them all. In Walker v. Ryan's (6th Cir 03/09/2005) employees sued claiming FLSA violations, and Ryan's moved to compel arbitration. Denied; denial affirmed.
Lack of consideration - no contract
EDSI provided no consideration to the employees because EDSI retained the right to modify its arbitration rules at any time. Ryan's provided no consideration because it was not obligated to submit its employment disputes to EDSI.
No knowing and voluntary waiver - no contract
Lots of facts on this point. Plaintiffs were poorly educated, in dire financial circumstances, were hired quickly with time to read the arbitration policy, possibly got misleading information from managers. Bottom line: No waiver of the right to go to court.
Lack of mutual assent - no contract
The arbitration language was on page 10 of an 11 page contract; it was a take-it-or-leave it deal in which the employee had no bargaining power; the employee was poorly educated; and the agreement was not adequately explained. Conclusion: no mutual assent.
Biased arbitration panel
The 6th Circuit found that the EDSI arbitration forum was not neutral, and that made the agreement unenforceable. EDSI is a for-profit company and Ryan's provided 42 percent of its gross income during one year. Said the court, "Ryan's effectively determines the ... pools of arbitrators." On top of that, EDSI had no protocol for selecting potential arbitrators out of its pools of arbitrators. Usually, arbitrator bias is a matter for post-arbitration litigation, but here the court felt that this system was "fundamentally unfair."
OK Ryan's. Maybe you should try using a real arbitration system.
Posted March 09, 2005 by Ross Runkel, Editor at LawMemo, publisher of Employment Law Memo. Try it.
