Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Three Phases Of The Supreme Court’S Arbitration Jurisprudence: Empowering The Already-Empowered, Martin H. Malin
The Three Phases Of The Supreme Court’S Arbitration Jurisprudence: Empowering The Already-Empowered, Martin H. Malin
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Disarming Employees: How American Employers Are Using Mandatory Arbitration To Deprive Workers Of Legal Protection, Jean R. Sternlight
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 …
Mandatory Binding Arbitration Clauses Prevent Consumers From Presenting Procedurally Difficult Claims, Jean R. Sternlight
Mandatory Binding Arbitration Clauses Prevent Consumers From Presenting Procedurally Difficult Claims, Jean R. Sternlight
Scholarly Works
The longstanding debate over the benefits and detriments of mandatory arbitration in the consumer context has often focused on the wrong issue. Although we have now argued for almost twenty years over whether it is appropriate to require consumers to arbitrate rather than litigate claims against providers of products and services, too often commentators have asked whether consumers win or lose when they bring claims in arbitration, rather than whether consumers’ claims are suppressed or eliminated altogether as a result of companies’ use of mandatory arbitration clauses. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion brings …
Fixing The Mandatory Arbitration Problem: We Need The Arbitration Fairness Act Of 2009, Jean R. Sternlight
Fixing The Mandatory Arbitration Problem: We Need The Arbitration Fairness Act Of 2009, Jean R. Sternlight
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
If You Love Arbitration, Set It Free: How "Mandatory" Undermines "Arbitration", David S. Schwartz
If You Love Arbitration, Set It Free: How "Mandatory" Undermines "Arbitration", David S. Schwartz
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
In Defense Of Mandatory Binding Arbitration (If Imposed On The Company), Jean R. Sternlight
In Defense Of Mandatory Binding Arbitration (If Imposed On The Company), Jean R. Sternlight
Nevada Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Creeping Mandatory Arbitration: Is It Just?, Jean R. Sternlight
Creeping Mandatory Arbitration: Is It Just?, Jean R. Sternlight
Scholarly Works
This Article examines the phenomenon of mandatory binding arbitration, imposed on consumers and employees, and considers whether this type of dispute resolution serves or instead undermines justice. It is fairly easy to attack binding arbitration as unfair, for example pointing to the fact that it undermines rights to jury trial and to proceed in class actions. However, this Article seeks to examine the phenomenon of mandatory binding arbitration from a broader perspective, recognizing that it is inappropriate to assume that justice requires our existing system of litigation, with its class actions and jury trial. The Article concludes that while informal …
Bootstrapping And Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Arbitral Infatuation And The Decline Of Consent, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Bootstrapping And Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Arbitral Infatuation And The Decline Of Consent, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution preserves for litigants a right to a jury trial in actions at law. The right to a jury trial does not attach for equitable actions, but in cases presenting claims for both legal and equitable relief a right to a jury trial exists for common questions of fact. Although many modern statutes and claims did not exist in 1791, the Amendment has been interpreted to require a jury trial of statutory claims seeking monetary damages, the classic form of legal relief, so long as there is a relatively apt analogy between the modern statutory …