Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- File Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Arbitration Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, At&T Mobility Llc V. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (Supreme Court Of The United States 2011) (No. 09-893), Karen H. Cross
Karen Halverson Cross
No abstract provided.
Litigating Religion, Michael A. Helfand
Litigating Religion, Michael A. Helfand
Michael A Helfand
This article considers how parties should resolve disputes that turn on religious doctrine and practice – that is, how people should litigate religion. Under current constitutional doctrine, litigating religion is generally the task of two types of religious institutions: first, religious arbitration tribunals, whose decisions are protected by arbitration doctrine, and religious courts, whose decision are protected by the religion clauses. Such institutions have been thrust into playing this role largely because the religion clauses are currently understood to prohibit courts from resolving religious questions – that is, the “religious question” doctrine is currently understood to prohibit courts from litigating …
From Supreme Court To Shopfloor: Mandatory Arbitration And The Reconfiguration Of Workplace Dispute Resolution, Alexander Colvin
From Supreme Court To Shopfloor: Mandatory Arbitration And The Reconfiguration Of Workplace Dispute Resolution, Alexander Colvin
Alexander Colvin
[Excerpt] In a series of court battles during the 1990s, employers successfully defended the use of mandatory employment arbitration against challenges that the procedures inherently undermined the statutory rights of employees. Efforts to introduce legislation in Congress aimed at reversing the Gilmer decision were unsuccessful. In 2001, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its acceptance of mandatory arbitration to resolve employment disputes in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams. However, some courts have been willing to strike down arbitration procedures that contain particularly egregious violations of due process. For example, courts have refused to enforce arbitration agreements that restrict employee damage awards, …
Purpose, Precedent, And Politics: Why Concepcion Covers Less Than You Think, Michael A. Helfand
Purpose, Precedent, And Politics: Why Concepcion Covers Less Than You Think, Michael A. Helfand
Michael A Helfand
This article sketches some possible limitations on the impact AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion will have going forward. While many have seen the Supreme Court’s decision as simultaneously signaling an end to the viability of class action lawsuits and undermining principles of federalism, there may be reasons to believe that it will not have implications quite so far reaching. Specifically, this article proposes three reasons why Concepcion’s impact may be limited. First, the decision lends itself to a more narrow reading, which simply demands that courts take the entire of an arbitration agreement into account before deploying common law defenses to …