Law Commons^™

Notes From A Quiet Corner: User Concerns About Reinsurance Arbitration – And Attendant Lessons For Selection Of Dispute Resolution Forums And Methods, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Arbitration between insurers and reinsurers – those who insure insurance companies – should logically run as smoothly as any arbitration process. Like the traditional commercial arbitration that drove enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act, reinsurance arbitration involves experienced actors in a confined industry in which the parties should be constructively aware of the rules, norms, customs and practices of the industry. But in spite of this, reinsurance arbitration experiences consistent problems of which the participants complain. This article reviews the complaints and exams possible solutions – including the possibility of arbitrating less and litigating more. Although these possible solutions would …

Disarming Employees: How American Employers Are Using Mandatory Arbitration To Deprive Workers Of Legal Protection, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Employers’ 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 …

Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time For A New Default Rule?, Jack Graves

Scholarly Works

Court litigation over the existence or validity of arbitration agreements is a major threat to the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. While New York Convention Article II(3) requires a court to “refer the parties to arbitration” when faced with a valid and effective arbitration agreement, it fails to provide any guidance with respect to the process for answering that question, thus leaving the issue to national law. A recalcitrant respondent may, therefore, have a variety of options for court challenges—based on a disparate array of national laws—in seeking to delay or at least complicate any claims subject to arbitration. This …

Court Litigation Over Arbitration Agreements: Is It Time For A New Default Rule?, Jack Graves

Scholarly Works

Court litigation over the existence or validity of arbitration agreements is a major threat to the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. While New York Convention Article II(3) requires a court to “refer the parties to arbitration” when faced with a valid and effective arbitration agreement, it fails to provide any guidance with respect to the process for answering that question, thus leaving the issue to national law. A recalcitrant respondent may, therefore, have a variety of options for court challenges—based on a disparate array of national laws—in seeking to delay or at least complicate any claims subject to arbitration. This …

Regulating Mandatory Arbitration, Thomas V. Burch

Scholarly Works

Over the last twenty-five years, the Supreme Court has relied on party autonomy and the national policy favoring arbitration to expand the Federal Arbitration Act’s scope beyond Congress’s original intent. Choosing these loaded premises has allowed the Court to reach the outcomes it desires while denying that it is making any political or moral judgments in its decisions – a type of bureaucratic formalism. One controversial outcome of the Court’s formalism, overall, has been the increased prevalence of mandatory arbitration. Although it reduces judicial caseloads and lowers companies’ dispute-resolution costs, it also restricts or eliminates individual rights and reduces public …

Arbitrating Disputes Between Companies And Individuals: Lessons From Abroad, Peter B. Rutledge, Anna W. Howard

Scholarly Works

Congress is considered changes to the Federal Arbitration Act and the central premise underlying these bills is the idea that the parties to these agreements (typically there is an individual on one side and a company on the other) tend to occupy unequal bargaining positions. The drafters of these bills conclude from this that the individual’s choice to opt into arbitration before a dispute has arisen cannot be considered free and voluntary, and thus, the arbitration agreement should be considered void and unenforceable.

Defenders of these bills claim that the United States, when compared to other nations, stands alone in …

Arbitration Reform: What We Know And What We Need To Know, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

The future of commercial arbitration has become a centerpiece of the domestic congressional agenda. According to one estimate, ten different bills introduced in the 110th Congress would chip away at the enforceability of pre-dispute arbitration agreements. By far the most significant bill, the Arbitration Fairness Act, would retroactively invalidate arbitration agreements in all employment, consumer, securities and franchise contracts. An especially vague provision in a prior version of the bill would invalidate agreements involving claims under statutes intended to protect civil rights or designed to regulate transactions between parties of unequal bargaining power. Are these wise moves?

Who Can Be Against Fairness? The Case Against The Arbitration Fairness Act, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

In this brief essay, I hope to lay out the case against the Arbitration Fairness Act.3 Part I of this Article addresses the “findings” on which the act is premised. It explains how in several respects the current research on arbitration flatly contradicts the premises animating those findings (in other respects, the data is incomplete, so the “findings” at best are better described as “untested hypotheses” or “assumptions”). Part II of this Article explains why postdispute arbitration is not a viable alternative to our present system of enforceable predispute arbitration clauses.

Keeping Arbitrations From Becoming Kangaroo Courts, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Arbitration has grown rapidly during the past 20 years. Particularly notable and problematic is the rapid onset of new or mass arbitration that has resulted from the judiciary's modern favorable attitude toward enforcement of arbitration clauses, even those imposed upon consumers, employees, small vendors, and debtors as part of a standardized contract of adhesion. In a separate article (See "Mandating Minimum Quality in Mass Arbitration," 76 U. Cin. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2007)), I present a more comprehensive list of what I regard as the necessary steps that must be taken to insure minimally acceptable quality and fairness in mass arbitration. …

The Effect Of Forum Selection Clauses On District Courts’ Authority To Compel Arbitration, Thomas V. Burch, John W. Hinchey

Scholarly Works

This is a short piece written for the AAA's Dispute Resolution Journal on two competing provisions in Section 4 of the FAA. One provision tells district courts to compel arbitration in accordance with the parties' agreement, including any forum selection clause. The other says that the court can compel arbitration only within its own territory. This, of course, creates a problem when the forum selection clause calls for arbitration in another jurisdiction. This short article addresses the conflict, showing how courts tend to rule on the issue (as of 2006).

Necessity Never Made A Good Bargain: When Consumer Arbitration Agreements Prohibit Class Relief, Thomas V. Burch

Scholarly Works

The American system of arbitration is constantly evolving. From the first formal arbitration tribunal in 1786—established by the New York Chamber of Commerce—to the creation of the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925—passed to suppress judicial hostility towards arbitration -- the system has continuously adapted to accommodate changing business practices and rising judicial concerns over the legitimacy of the institution. In fact, the system’s adaptation has been so effective that the Supreme Court now recognizes a “national policy favoring arbitration.” This “national policy” is the most recent phase of the arbitration evolution, and it raises several concerns. Most significantly, lower courts …

Georgia General Assembly Adopts "Manifest Disregard" As A Ground For Vacating Arbitration Awards: How Will Georgia Courts Treat The New Standard?, John W. Hinchey, Thomas V. Burch

Scholarly Works

Generally, courts may only set aside arbitration awards on the grounds listed in the Federal Arbitration Act or the applicable state arbitration code. However, all federal circuit courts and a few state courts have adopted a non-statutory exception that allows a court to overturn an arbitrator's decision if the arbitrator has exemplified a "manifest disregard" of the law.

In 2002, after several years of tentative lower court decisions, the Georgia Supreme Court, in Progressive Data Systems v. Jefferson Holding Corporation, held that manifest disregard is not a proper ground for vacatur in Georgia. The court emphasized that Georgia's Arbitration Code …

On The Importance Of Institutions: Review Of Arbitral Awards For Legal Errors, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

In my view, legislatures, rather than courts or parties, should decide whether (and to what extent) courts should review arbitral awards for errors of law. The optimal legislative mechanism should not be compulsory but should offer parties the choice whether to "opt-in" to this regime of expanded review by inserting language to that effect in their arbitration agreement. A legislative solution with an "opt-in" feature has a sounder doctrinal foundation, better respects the distribution of power between various branches of government, involves a lower risk of error and minimizes transaction costs. From this position, two additional conclusions follow: first, courts …

Is The U.S. Out On A Limb? Comparing The U.S. Approach To Mandatory Consumer And Employment Arbitration To That Of The Rest Of The World, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

After quickly summarizing the landscape of mandatory arbitration both within and without the United States, this article will consider why mandatory arbitration is treated so disparately, whether it is problematic that approaches to mandatory arbitration are so varied among countries, and what the differing jurisdictions can and should learn from one another. The article concludes that the United States Congress should be very concerned with the fact that we are treating mandatory arbitration more permissively than other countries. I, along with many others, have previously presented many arguments for why mandatory arbitration is problematic. Our outlier status on this issue …

Mandatory Binding Arbitration And The Demise Of The Seventh Amendment Right To A Jury Trial, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

How can the body of law which protects the federal constitutional jury trial right be reconciled with a body of arbitration law which often states such propositions as (1) arbitration is favored; (2) arbitration clauses may be upheld absent a showing of voluntary, knowing, or intentional consent; (3) the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proof; (4) arbitration can sometimes be imposed using unsigned envelope "stuffers," handbooks, and warranties; and (5) ambiguous contracts should be construed broadly to support arbitration? To be valid, in most courts the waiver and whether it was actually state arbitration clauses need not be …

Reconsidering The Employment Contract Exclusion In Section 1 Of The Federal Arbitration Act: Correcting The Judiciary's Failure Of Statutory Vision, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The Federal Arbitration Act (the Act), seeks to eliminate centuries of perceived judicial hostility toward arbitration agreements. The Act made written arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce specifically enforceable. It also provided a procedural structure for enforcing awards, which were protected through deferential judicial review. The Act intended to have a wide reach, employing a broad definition of commerce that has presumably grown in breadth along with the expansion of judicial notions of commerce. Although courts applied the Act in tentative and cautious fashion until the 1960's, arbitration gained momentum during the 1970's and the 1980's. Despite growing judicial enthusiasm for …