Law Commons^™

The Uberization Of Arbitration Clauses, Jill I. Gross

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In the early part of this decade, the Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) strictly enforced predispute arbitration clauses (PDAAs) with class action waivers and so-called “delegation” provisions in consumer contracts. Just after the Court’s 2013 ruling that clauses with class action waivers did not prevent claimants from vindicating their statutory rights, Uber— a company at the heart of the “gig economy”—started inserting PDAAs in agreements with its drivers and passengers. Uber’s move has generated dozens of challenges to its clause in lawsuits across the country, and thus dozens of federal court opinions contributing to modern FAA …

Case Watch: Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams Llp V. Lopez, Ramona L. Lampley

Faculty Articles

The Texas Supreme Court effectively gave a “thumbs-up” to attorney-client arbitration agreements in Royston, Rayzor, Vickery, & Williams, LLP v. Lopez, 467 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2015), reh’g denied (Sept. 11, 2015). The plaintiff, Frank Lopez, hired Royston, Rayzor to represent him in a divorce. As part of the representation agreement, Lopez agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising out of the attorney-client relationship, but the law firm excluded from the arbitration agreement any claims it might have against Lopez for expenses or fees. Lopez later sued Royston, Rayzor and the firm moved to compel arbitration.

Lopez contended that the arbitration agreement …

A Negotiation Approach To Mandatory Arbitration Contracts, Miriam A. Cherry

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. the First Circuit addressed whether a pre-dispute mandatory arbitration contract covered employment claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and was thus enforceable. The court held that while these types of arbitration contracts are theoretically enforceable, this particular contract was not. The First Circuit determined that the 1991 Civil Rights Act and the Older Worker's Benefit Protection Act did not preclude the enforcement of mandatory arbitration contracts, and that there was an insufficient showing of arbitral bias to prevent the contract's enforcement. The court, …

Panacea Or Corporate Tool?: Debunking The Supreme Court's Preference For Binding Arbitration, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

This article examines the increasing use of contracts of adhesion in which companies require consumers, employees, franchisees and other "little guys" to submit disputes with the company to binding arbitration. The article argues that the Supreme Court's current preference for such agreements is not statutorily well-founded. Specifically, it contends that the Federal Arbitration Act was not intended to make such agreements binding on unknowing consumers or employees. Turning next to policy analysis, the article asserts that the Supreme Court has erred in expressing a preference for binding arbitration in cases where such arbitration was not knowingly and voluntarily accepted by …

Agreements Changing The Forum For Resolving Malpractice Claims, James A. Henderson Jr.

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.