tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to KrK
Re: Wait for it...... said by KrK:My employer has already forced all employees under duress (Think Choice: You choose to agree, or you choose to find yourself another job) to agree to binding arbitration for every possible dispute and violation they commit on you. Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review.
I.E. Civil contracts are null and void when the conflict with codified laws. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | True. I've heard somewhere you can't sign your legal rights away. Sorta. I think it would just make the case more expensive, and a larger legal bill, because you'd have to not only prove your case against the employer, but overturn their arbitration agreement as well.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
| said by KrK:True. I've heard somewhere you can't sign your legal rights away. Sorta. I think it would just make the case more expensive, and a larger legal bill, because you'd have to not only prove your case against the employer, but overturn their arbitration agreement as well. DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!!!!!!!!!
It's only a mere roadblock to those companies that have deep pockets and lawyers on retainer.  |
|
|
|
| reply to tkdslr
"Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review."
Actually, this is not wholly correct. Enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements in employee contracts can typically survive judicial review, and has been enforced in cases of discrimination, including age, sex, and disability.
It depends more on the wording than anything else, as well as state where the suits are filed. See this article for more detail.
The arbitration companies will say that the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supports arbitration. What the EEOC supports is post-dispute arbitration processes, willing entered into by both parties after the fact, and with protections in place to ensure the process is fair and impartial.
The EEOC does NOT support binding mandatory arbitration agreements, which is what the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 would eliminate.
|
|
| reply to tkdslr
said by tkdslr:said by KrK:My employer has already forced all employees under duress (Think Choice: You choose to agree, or you choose to find yourself another job) to agree to binding arbitration for every possible dispute and violation they commit on you. Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review. I.E. Civil contracts are null and void when the conflict with codified laws. Tell that to the guy who tried to sue Gateway over a non functioning computer. The courts upheld their arbitration clause that required him to send his case to an arbitration company in Paris France (!!!) with a $2000 payment.
The arbitration clauses usually also forbid you to join or file a class-action suit so if the company cheats everyone out of a relatively small amount, you have no recourse whatsoever.
I remember the AT&T Wireless arbitration clause ... you are forbidden to sue or join a class action but AT&T had the right to choose whether to sure or use arbitration. |
|
| said by TheBigCheese:Tell that to the guy who tried to sue Gateway over a non functioning computer. The courts upheld their arbitration clause that required him to send his case to an arbitration company in Paris France (!!!) with a $2000 payment. O.k. post a link to this case. This would almost certainly not hold up since the arbitration is in another country. |
|
