3,135 research outputs found
Forced Arbitration Undermines Enforcement of Federal Laws by Suppressing Consumers\u27 and Employees\u27 Ability to Bring Claims
No full textTestimony of Professor Jean R. Sternlight to the Senate Judiciary Committee, arguing for the passage of the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013
Gateway Widens Doorway to Imposing Unfair Binding Arbitration on Consumers
No full textHill v. Gateway, is but the most extreme example of a series of court decisions that allow large companies to impose potentially unfair binding arbitration agreements on unwitting consumers. The outcome in Gateway, however, is questionable on federal statutory, common law, and constitutional grounds
Transcript of the Florida Tobacco Litigation Symposium - Fact, Law, Policy and Significance
No full textOn November 17, 1997, Professors Jeffrey W. Stempel and Jean R. Sternlight joined a group of colleagues specializing in litigation at the Florida State University College of Law Review\u27s Symposium on the tobacco litigation settlement reached between the State of Florida and five leading tobacco manufacturers that same year. The professors appeared on a panel to discuss the the relationship among the legal system, public health concerns, and tobacco. This is a transcript of those preceedings
Making Peace with Your Enemy: Nelson Mandela and His Contributions to Conflict Resolution
No full textThis is a transcription of the tenth anniversary celebration of the Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution at the William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The event was held in honor of NelsonMandela, and included a panel discussion about his contributions to the dispute resolution field.
Panelists included Dean Penelope Andrews of the University of Cape Town Faculty of Law, Prof. Carrie Menkel-Meadow of the U.C. Irvine School of Law, Prof. Robert Mnookin of Harvard Law School, and Judge Richard Goldstone, a former member of the Constitutional Court of South Africa.
An introduction was made by Dean Dan Hamilton of the Boyd School of Law and Prof. Jean Sternlight, Director of the Saltman Center. Prof. Andrea Schneider, Director of the Marquette University Law School Dispute Resolution Program, delivered opening remarks and led the panel discussion
Rethinking the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court\u27s Preference for Binding Arbitration: A Fresh Assessment of Jury Trial, Separation of Powers, and Due Process Concerns
No full textCourts and commentators have typically assumed that binding arbitration is both private and consensual, and that it therefore raises no constitutional concerns. This Article challenges both assumptions and goes on to consider arguments that arbitration agreements may unconstitutionally deprive persons of their right to a jury trial, to a judge, and to due process of law. The author argues first that courts\u27 interpretation of seemingly private arbitration agreements may often give rise to state action, particularly where courts have used a preference favoring arbitration over litigation to construe a contract in a non-neutral fashion. The author next draws on the Supreme Court\u27s decisions governing waiver of constitutional rights to argue that arbitration agreements are invalid where they are unclear, and further contends that many unknowing or coercive agreements are invalid as well. Having demonstrated the relevance of constitutional analysis to many seemingly private arbitration agreements, the Article contends that many arbitration agreements unconstitutionally deprive prospective federal court litigants of their right to a jury and to an Article III judge. Finally, the author asserts that some arbitration clauses violate the Due Process Clause as well by denying parties their right to adequate notice, an impartial judge, a meaningful appeal, and other specific procedural protections. The Article concludes that we must reconsider the applicability of the Constitution to private arbitration agreements. While many such agreements will present no constitutional concerns, other agreements must be voided under the Constitution
Introduction: Collaboration Good or Bad: How is it Working on the Colorado River?
No full textThis is an introduction to articles submitted as part of the Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution’s Symposium, Collaboration and the Colorado River. The Symposium focused on the uses of collaboration to resolve environmental and natural resource disputes pertaining to the Colorado River.
This written version of the conference now builds upon the live event. We are most fortunate that many (unfortunately not all) of the speakers were able to contribute articles to comprise this written version of the Symposium. In their papers, presenters have expanded on their oral remarks and responded to points made by others during the conference
Introduction: Dreaming About Arbitration Reform
No full textThis is an introduction to articles submitted as part of the Saltman Center for Dispute Resolution’s Symposium, Rethinking the Federal Arbitration Act: An Examination of Whether and How the Statute Should be Amended. The panelist’s remarks are divided into five categories: whether and when arbitration agreements ought to be enforceable, how responsibilities and legal issues should be divided among arbitrators and courts, terms under which courts should be able to vacate arbitral awards, multi-jurisdictional issues brought into play by the Federal Arbitration Act and its interpretation, and the FAA through a wide-angle lens rather than focusing on particular narrow aspects that might be in need of reform
Hurrah for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Consumer Arbitration as a Poster Child for Regulation
No full textDrawing on economic, psychological and philosophical considerations, this Essay considers whether consumers should be free to agree to contractually trade their opportunity to litigate in a class action for the opportunity to bring an arbitration claim against a company. The Essay suggests that by looking at the CFPB\u27s regulation through these three lenses, one sees that the regulation is desirable—even a poster child—for the potential value of regulation when market forces are not sufficient to protect individual or public interests
Tsunami: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion Impedes Access to Justice
No full text26 pagesIt is highly ironic but no less distressing that a case with a name
meaning “conception” should come to signify death for the legal
claims of many potential plaintiffs. The U.S. Supreme Court’s fiveto-
four decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion is proving to
be a tsunami that is wiping out existing and potential consumer and
employment class actions. This Article will explore the decision;
how the decision is being interpreted by lower courts; the decision’s
impact on parties to such litigation; and how, if not legislatively
limited, this case will substantially harm consumers, employees, and
perhaps others
Disarming Employees: How American Employers Are Using Mandatory Arbitration to Deprive Workers of Legal Protection
No full textEmployers’ imposition of mandatory arbitration constricts employees’ access to justice. The twenty percent of the American workforce covered by mandatory arbitration clauses file just 2,000 arbitration claims annually, a minuscule number even compared to the small number of employees who litigate claims individually or as part of a class action. Exploring how mandatory arbitration prevents employees from enforcing their rights the Article shows employees covered by mandatory arbitration clauses (1) win far less frequently and far less money than employees who litigate; (2) have a harder time obtaining legal representation; (3) are often precluded from participating in class, collective or sometimes even group claims; and (4) do not fare well pro se in arbitration. Noting employers’ use of mandatory arbitration is likely increasing, the Article urges Congress to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act both to protect individual employees and also to ensure employment laws are enforced
- …
