Waiving Your Right to Sue
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-03-08/waiving-your-right-sue
A growing number of companies are including forced arbitration clauses in their contracts. What consumers and job seekers give up when they unknowingly waive their right to sue.
Guests
Alan Morrison
Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service, George Washington University Law School
Andrew Pincus
A partner with Mayer Brown law firm, who represented AT&T in the Concepcion case before the Supreme Court, former Assistant to the Solicitor General in the United States Department of Justice.
Richard Naimark
senior vice president of the American Arbitration Association.
Christine Hines
consumer and civil justice counsel at Public Citizen's Congress Watch
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
One by one citizens are losing their rights. Non-compete,non-disclosure,forced arbitration within a stacked deck.Invalid search warrants are now valid.
I`m feeling we`ve fought and lost a war,and the terms of surrender are being imposed by our Corporate Masters.
What no one is mentioning is binding versus non-binding arbitration.
Also, employees have remedy through the EEOC.
Some of my "rules to live by":
- Mandatory clauses are in the best interest of the person or entity writing the clause. Or in other words, a mandate favors the one doing the mandating.
- When in doubt, it is always in a person's best interest to maximize his or her options. Giving up an option is never in one's best interest unless one knows exactly what is being given up.
Kate Adams
If arbitration is so atractive then why does it have to be mandatory? This is just another method of substituting corporate policy for substantive jurisdictional law. It is, of course, more favorable to the corporation than to the customers or employees otherwise it would not be done.
This sounds like a shadow justice system, how could that be constitutional?
Besides, it doesn't pass the laugh test. Companies are always going to work in their interest, they are obligated to do so. If the issue at hand is a contest with a disgruntled customer or employee, and the companies are flocking to this form of justice, then obviously it favors their position.
As an attorney who practiced litigation defense on behalf of companies, I can assure you if mandatory arbitration was benefiting consumers/employees, companies would not require them. Companies increasingly use them because they are cost effective both in the process and in the awards. In my experience, consumers/employees who participate in arbitration have a harder time finding qualified attorneys to take their case than if they could litigate. Additionally, although both parties have a say in choosing the arbiter, the company's legal representation is much more familiar with the arbiter's background and ruling reputation. I could always pick three arbiters who's backgrounds were in my client's favor and let the plaintiff have the final choice.
@ Patsy Nomore - I completely agree that we've become enslaved by our Corporate Masters.
Unfortunately, we haven't done much in terms of fighting. We've allowed this to happen due to our collective ignorance & apathy. Voting for people who fight for corporations & the wealthy, instead of the poor & middle class, hasn't helped either.
@ Kate Adams/adamscn - The problem is, with just about every corporation & employer putting these arbitration clauses in their contracts, there are NOT any real options. It's either you agree to give up your rights to legal recourse through the court system, or you don't get employed or use of the product.
This is a huge hidden issue and there is NO justification for forcing consumers and workers into arbitration. Until consumers refuse to sign such contracts this will continue. Forced arbitration is just another example of the power grab by the corporate elite to limit employees and consumer options and rights (actually they do not even recognize that these groups should have rights). There was a study conducted back in 2009 (cannot remember the university law school that undertook this) that showed that over 90% of the outcomes were anti labor and anti consumer and most of the arbitrators where hired by the very businesses they represent. Congress should do something about this but it will not happen until there is a critical mass of people realizing they are being ripped off by this process. And yes this is very much a conservative liberal issue. Arbitration is just another form of lassiez faire in the market place.
In name we are a constitutional republic, but in fact a corporatacracy.
compelled arbitration is one issue, but fair arbitration is another; AAA has a system which ensures true neutrality, but there are other providers who do not.
@ Ladyingreen - Was the study by the U. of Wisconsin law school?
http://pubcit.typepad.com/files/ssrn-id14014691.pdf
Hi Diane, i tuned in a little late. I have not heard your guest talk about mobile phones as a payment method. Last year I returned from 5 years in Kenya, where the worlds first mobile payment program was initiated. This system--MPesa--came from an alliance between a cellular phone company and a large, local bank. Now it is used by millions of people all over Kenya to transfer "money" from person to person, to make payments to other individuals, domestically and cross-border, and also to make electronic, mobile payments to utilities and the many other businesses offering that service. It has been a remarkable breakthrough for the poor who do not have commercial bank accounts.
A Canadian investment company is trying to build an open pit copper mine in our neighborhood and everyone within 10 miles has gotten a letter asking us to sign a "well protection agreement" so that when our groundwater is depleted the company will drill our wells up to 600 feet or , they will give us $20,000 and we are on our own. HERE'S THE CATCH - We can take no legal action against the company in the event that 600 feet is still doesn't get water or $20,000 isn't enough to get our own well drilled. As a community we have unanimously decided not to sign away our right to sue this company if we lose our drinking water and our property values are lowered. Without water, we can't live here and we can't sell our homes.
What I haven't heard is how the employer composes the list of arbitrators the employee is forced to use. This happened at my local fire district involving a dispute between a secretary and the board of directors.
She had to use arbitration, but didn't know the Board had the privilege of presenting their choices of arbitrators, knowing the past history of the choices. She had to make a blind guess on her choices.
After receiving a ruling against her, she found out the people on the master list both parties chose from had a known track recored of usually ruling in favor of employers. To add insult to injury, she had to pay half the fee. It was a total ripoff.
Hmmm, if this were truly fair for all parties, then customers and employees would simply be asked to agree to try arbitration FIRST. The right to sue would never be taken away. Diane is right. Something just doesn't sit right within her gut about this - for good reason.