Law Commons^™

Resolving Intrastate Conflicts Of Laws: The Example Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Andrew D. Bradt

Andrew D. Bradt

Choice-of-law analysis is typically thought of as confined to the multistate setting. This is a mistake. To the contrary, conflicts often appear between statutes of a single state. Unfortunately, courts do not see these cases as “choice-of-law” cases. They see them only as problems of statutory interpretation and ignore conflicts of laws instead of resolving them, either by construing the conflicting statutes independently or applying a canon of construction. Here, I examine the benefits of importing choice-of-law tools—particularly the tools of governmental-interest analysis—into the resolution of intrastate conflicts of laws. When two laws promulgated by the same sovereign clash, governmental-interest …

The Evolution And Decline Of The Effective-Vindication Doctrine In U.S. Arbitration Law, Okezie Chukwumerije

OKEZIE CHUKWUMERIJE

This article offers information on the history, significance and role of the effective-vindication doctrine in U.S. arbitration law in promoting access to justice. It analyzes the significance of broad policy implications regarding the interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by the Court facilitating the arbitration of commercial disputes and protecting the statutory rights of consumers in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph.

Measures To Encourage And Reward Post-Dispute Agreements To Arbitrate Employment Discrimination Claims, Michael Z. Green

Michael Z. Green

No abstract provided.

Assessing The Case For Employment Arbitration: A New Path For Empirical Research, David Sherwyn, Samuel Estreicher, Michael Heise

Michael Heise

No abstract provided.

At&T V. Concepcion: The Problem Of A False Majority, Lisa Tripp, Evan R. Hanson

Lisa Tripp

The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion is the first case where the Supreme Court explores the interplay between state law unconscionability doctrine and the vast preemptive power of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Although it is considered by many to be a landmark decision which has the potential for greatly expanding the already impressive preemptive power of the FAA, something is amiss with Concepcion.

AT&T v. Concepcion is ostensibly a 5-4 majority decision with a concurring opinion. However, the differences in the majority and concurring opinions are so profound that it appears that Justice Thomas actually …

Greater And Lesser Powers, Samuel Levin

Samuel Levin

During much of the twentieth century it was relatively stylish for lawyers, judges and justices to argue that an exercise of power was permissible because "the greater power [to do something else] necessarily includes the lesser power [to do this]." Unfortunately, sloppy and unprincipled uses that merely reflected the intuitions of those who invoked it has largely discredited the argument, although it still makes some relevant appearances.

This paper argues that there is a principled way to apply the argument: by looking to the relative harms caused by each exercise of power. However, any notion of "necessarily includes" needs to …

The Lost Controversy Limitation Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Stephen Friedman

Stephen E Friedman

Despite Congress’s deliberate limitation of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) to disputes arising out of a contract containing an arbitration provision, broader arbitration provisions are ubiquitous. Courts invariably enforce such provisions under the FAA. Notably, the Supreme Court has almost entirely disregarded the relevant language of the FAA and has ignored the conflict between the FAA’s narrow language and the broad language typically found in arbitration provisions. In so doing, the Court has quietly and inappropriately elevated the language of private agreements above the language of the statute. In this article, Professor Friedman first identifies the origin of the …

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 …

Discrimination Cases In The 2001 Term Of The Supreme Court (Symposium: The Fourteenth Annual Supreme Court Review), Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman

No abstract provided.

Discrimination Cases In The 2000 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman

No abstract provided.

Opening The Door To Justice: Amending The Federal Arbitration Act To Remedy The Unjust Use Of Predispute Arbitration Agreements., John D. Wood

John D. Wood, Esq.

This paper assesses the Arbitration Fairness Act’s proposed amendments to the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as the possibility of contracting for heightened judicial review of arbitration awards. In brief, I support the amendments as well as the possibility of review. Section 2(b) of the AFA would prohibit the enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements that require arbitration of employment, consumer, or franchise disputes or disputes arising under any statute intended to protect civil rights. I demonstrate why the prevailing practice of summarily enforcing predispute arbitration agreements is unjust in these contexts, and why Congressional amendment, rather than State law or …

When Can Attorneys' Fees Be Recovered In An Award Enforcement Action, M. Anderson Berry, Katherine S. Ritchey, Nandini Iyer

M. Anderson Berry

Because parties do not always comply with arbitration awards, it may be necessary for the prevailing party to seek enforcement of the award in a court of law—typically in a jurisdiction where the losing party has sufficient assets. This article focuses on whether the prevailing party can recover attorneys’ fees accrued during the enforcement procedure in U.S. district court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Reconsidering Arbitration: Evaluating The Future Of The Manifest Disregard Doctrine, Griffin Toronjo Pivateau

Griffin Toronjo Pivateau

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court indicated that parties may now have fewer rights to appeal arbitration awards. In Hall Street v. Mattel, Inc., the Court found that parties to an arbitration agreement could not supplement, by contract, the statutory grounds for challenging an arbitration award. Unfortunately, the Court called into doubt a long line of cases holding that a party could seek to vacate an arbitration decision where the arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard for the law. Until the Hall Street decision, the manifest disregard doctrine enjoyed widespread acceptance. Appellate courts from every circuit have used the manifest …

The Other Avenues Of Hall Street And Prospects For Judicial Review Of Arbitral Awards, Maureen A. Weston Prof.

Maureen A Weston

In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provided the exclusive grounds for judicial vacatur and modification of arbitral awards covered under the Act. In so ruling, the Court rejected the contention that the FAA’s requirement to enforce arbitration contracts as written includes private contracts that seek to expand the scope of judicial review beyond the grounds enumerated in the FAA. Despite holding that parties cannot expand a court’s power to review an arbitration award under the FAA, the Court alluded to the possibility of “other possible avenues” for …

An Opportunity Lost: The Supreme Court’S Failure To Recognize The Implications Of Its Holding In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. V. Mattel, Inc., Eric S. Chafetz

Eric S. Chafetz

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008), finally addressed whether parties can contract to expand the judicial review provisions in sections 10 and 11 of Article 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which governs domestic arbitration awards. Although the Supreme Court resolved this specific issue in the negative, its analysis was incomplete, as it did not recognize how the meaning of the language included in section 9 of Article 1 of the FAA was very similar to that in section 207 of Article 2 of the FAA. …

Why Arbitrate? The Questionable Quest For Efficiency In Hallstreet Street Associates, Llc V. Mattel, Inc., David K. Kessler

David K Kessler

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) makes arbitration agreements between private parties legally enforceable. The policy favoring arbitration underlying the FAA has been justified as serving two ends: it protects freedom of contract, and it creates an efficient alternative dispute resolution system. Previous decisions by the Court have indicated a belief that, when those two goals come into conflict, the result that preserves freedom of contract should prevail. In Hallstreet Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., however, a recent case involving the Federal Arbitration Act, the Court’s decision preserved perceived efficiency at the expense of freedom of contract. The Court held that …

Better To Have Tried And Failed Than Never To Have Tried Mediation At All: Implications Of Mandatory Mediation In Fisher V. Ge Medical Systems, Adam Epstein

Adam Epstein

A discussion of the 2003 case, Fisher v. GE Medical Systems that helped to shape the issue of whether or not mandatory mediation clauses in employment handbooks constitute “arbitration” under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Several courts in different jurisdictions have interpreted arbitration and mediation as the same, especially in circumstances involving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Employer's Exclusive Control Over Selection Of Arbitrators Held Invalid, Adam Epstein

Adam Epstein

Discussion of the 2003 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case McMullen v. Meijer, Inc. While alternative forms of dispute resolution such as arbitration and mediation are now commonplace and are effectively utilized to avoid litigation and resolve disputes between employers and employees, the procedure in the arbitration process must be fair. Upon the hire, employers often provide their employees with an employment handbook that specifically discusses procedures involving termination. Often the employee handbook, if one exists, is viewed as a contract and is often a first step in determining the proper method of dispute resolution and procedure. In this case, …