[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Article on Forced Arbitration and Bias

[George Kirikos]

Hello,

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
> So no, arbitration is not the golden child of dispute resolution systems.

Indeed, the NY Times wrote a series of articles in 2015 discussing
arbitration as "stacking the decks of justice":

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=1

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbitration-a-privatization-of-the-justice-system.html

"To deliver favorable outcomes to companies, some arbitrators have
twisted or outright disregarded the law, interviews and records show.

“What rules of evidence apply?” one arbitration firm asks in the
question and answer section of its website. “The short answer is
none.”
....

"Unfettered by strict judicial rules against conflicts of interest,
companies can steer cases to friendly arbitrators. In turn, interviews
and records show, some arbitrators cultivate close ties with companies
to get business."
....

"“It’s not a system of justice; it’s a rigged system of expediency,”
Mr. Caplin said."
...

"Cliff Palefsky, a San Francisco lawyer who has worked to develop
fairness standards for arbitration, said the system worked only if
both sides wanted to participate. “Once it’s forced, it is corrupted,”
he said."
...
"“I felt like I had been sucker-punched,” Ms. Brenner said."

"Fearful of losing business, some arbitrators pass around the story of
Stefan M. Mason as a cautionary tale. They say Mr. Mason ruled in
favor of an employee in an age discrimination suit, awarding him $1.7
million, and was never hired to hear another employment case.

While Mr. Mason’s experience was rare, more than 30 arbitrators said
in interviews that the pressure to rule for the companies that give
them business was real."

I think it's very telling that in the dispute between Uber and
Google/Waymo, Google was not interested in having it decided via
arbitration, but demanded that it be in a real court:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/05/12/the_uber_google_legal_showdown_will_play_out_in_court.html

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Waymo-v-Uber-heading-to-jury-11141668.php

And ultimately it will be held in court, before a jury. The right to
have legal disputes decided by a jury of ordinary citizens, rather
than a judge/arbitrator is important (and is violated by Option 2).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/