Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyer

Personal Injury Law

: San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyer

Mandatory Arbitration May Get Shelved

By Beth Janicek

Mandatory Arbitration Clause’s in my opinion bars your right to justice.

Binding Mandatory Arbitration (BMA) as defined by the Give Me Back My Rights Coalition is when a corporation includes a BMA requirement in its contracts; it means your dispute must be decided by a private legal system. Because BMA clauses are "binding," you must abide by the decision and have no right to appeal.

Next year with the Democratic Party controlling both Congress and White House, Michael LeRoy a University of Illinois labor law expert predicts a bill sponsored by Democrats will be approved early next year excluding companies from imposing arbitration.

"The bottom line is you shouldn't be forced into arbitration," LeRoy said. "It doesn't seem like a hallmark of a democratic society to say that as a condition of an important economic relationship such as employment that you must forego a constitutional right.”

LeRoy’s research shows that arbitration is flawed. One study found that state appellate courts confirmed 86.7% of employers win compared to 56.4% where arbitrators sided with employees in job-related disputes.

Additionally, companies alone select the arbitration service and usually are dependent on them for repeat business. The amount of evidence presented is usually limited and if they lose there is no right to appeal. If they refuse to participate in arbitration the clauses often state they automatically lose without any further recourse.

National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) defends the rights of consumers and advances economic justice. They oppose binding mandatory arbitration, class action bans, and other devices that deny consumers access to the justice system.

NCLC’s model state law would be:

1. Limit conflicts of interest involving arbitrators;

2. Prohibit many secrecy provisions governing the scope, magnitude and details of arbitration awards;

3. Allow consumers with small claims to seek relief collectively;

4. Require clear, up-front disclosure of potential arbitration costs and protect indigent consumers from excessive costs and fees; and

5. Preserve the right to judicial review in many cases involving insurance contracts, a particularly troubling area when exclusively governed by mandatory arbitration.

Under the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act, sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga. arbitration would remain a voluntary option to settle disputes, rather than mandatory.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Beth Janicek

Full post as published by San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyer on November 19, 2008 (boomark / email).