The opposition against mandatory arbitration is building. The Consumerist has been a vocal critic of mandatory arbitration. And last year, BusinessWeek ran a cover story on the evils of mandatory arbitration provisions called "Banks vs. Consumers (Guess Who Wins)" .

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 is in the House now and needs your support. Write your Congressperson and urge him or her to co-sponsor the bill. It’s as easy as 1-2-3.

1. Go to the United States Postal Service website , type in your home address, and hit "submit" to get your zip+4 code.
2. Go to the U.S. House of Representatives website , input your state and ZIP+4 code, then hit "Contact My Representative".
3. Click on the link to send a message to your representative and paste the below into the comment box: "I am writing to urge you to support and co-sponsor the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009. Mandatory arbitration agreements are unfair to consumers and employees by denying them choice. Congress must act to put an end to them."

Do it now and you’ll have done your part to make our great country that much greater.

Related posts:

1. Arbitration Works Better than Lawsuits . . . But for Whom?
2. Proof That Arbitration Is Bad for Employees
3. Is Arbitration Good or Bad for Employees?

Congress is taking up legislation this week that will wipe out arbitration provisions in hundreds of millions of consumer contracts — for everything from credit-card agreements to cell phones to health-insurance policies, even a contract for the purchase of a kitchen sink. The bill is so sweeping that it wouldn’t apply just to contracts consumers may sign in the future. It will cancel arbitration agreements agreed to in the past.

Fact : The bill only bans mandatory arbitration clauses. If you the consumer or you the employee still think arbitration is a good idea, then the bill doesn’t stop you from doing so. It just prohibits contracts that force you to arbitrate whether you like it or not. In other words, the bill wants to give you a right to choose.

This legislation is a top priority of plaintiffs’ lawyers, since arbitration keeps big-dollar disputes out of the courtroom. But it’s a bad deal for consumers. The law will not make arbitration "fairer"; it will make it go away, because it is very difficult to get two sides of a dispute to agree to much of anything once a dispute has started. That inconvenient reality is one that some of our lawmakers are simply ignoring.

Fact : Why would making arbitration optional, not mandatory, for employees and consumers be less fair? If arbitration were as good for consumers and employees as the article makes it out to be, then why is there a need to force them to do it? All disputes boil down to one thing: money. Plaintiff’s lawyers typically charge their clients a percentage of that money. If arbitration led to "fairer" results, that can only mean one thing: larger money awards for the consumer/employee and for their lawyer. Sounds good. So then, why would plaintiff’s lawyers oppose arbitration? Because arbitration does NOT lead to a fair money award for the consumer/employee. The awards are typically 50% or less of what the consumer/employee would get from a jury in a courtroom. If you want to know why, read "Is Arbitration Good or Bad for Employees?" .

[Arbitration] can help consumers resolve disputes with companies without the high costs and legal fees of a full-blown lawsuit.

Fact : Arbitrators are like private judges, with one big difference. The judge doesn’t charge the parties for his services, he or she is paid by the taxpayers. Arbitrators, who can charge $5,000, $10,000 or even more per day, are paid by the disputants. If you lose your dispute before the arbitrator – an most likely you will – you could be on the hook for his fees. If that happens, get ready for a whopper of a bill.

Without arbitration, he wrote in the 1995 decision, Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson , "the typical consumer who has only a small damages claim (who seeks, say, the value of only a defective refrigerator or television set)" would be left "without any remedy but a court remedy, the costs and delays of which could eat up the value of an eventual small recovery."

Fact : With all due respect to Justice Stephen Breyer, consumers/employees who have dispute over small damages can take their case to small claims court where they can have their case heard by a judge who won’t charge them by the hour like an arbitrator might. If they feel like it, they can even have their case decided by Judge Judy or the People’s Court. Small disputes got resolved before arbitration ever appeared on the scene, and they will continue to get resolved even if arbitration is no longer an option.

The average consumer with a small claim is unlikely to sue at all. Studies confirm what common sense suggests: Few, if any, lawyers will even take cases involving small potential recoveries. And without a lawyer, navigating the court system is nearly impossible.

Fact : The average consumer/employee with a small claim who is unlikely to sue is just as unlikely to read the fine print on their contract and initiate an arbitration. In fact, small claims are decided all the time without the aid of a lawyer – in small claims court. Navigating small claims court without a lawyer is far from "nearly impossible". Anybody can file a small claims court. All it takes is a trip to your local courthouse, filling out a 1 or 2 page form, and paying a small filing fee, perhaps $50 or so. Lawyers are not permitted in small claims court because the whole idea is to keep costs down and make the court accessible to the average consumer/employee. You could even choose to have your small claims arbitrated for free by lawyers who volunteer their time at small claims court.

By contrast, arbitration is much less expensive for consumers than courts; many businesses have agreed to pay virtually all of the costs of arbitration.

Fact : Unless you lose. Then you might be on the hook for the arbitrator’s fees and costs. I have heard of cases where employees lost at arbitration and got stuck with an arbitrator bill as high as $60,000. The arbitrator’s bill was larger than the amount in dispute.

Decisions can be rendered after hearings by telephone or on documents alone, rather than requiring a consumer to spend time on an in-person hearing. And arbitration is far quicker. Claims are frequently resolved in a matter of months, compared with an average two-year wait in, say, federal court. Our courts are not designed to afford individual consumers realistic access to redress for commercial disputes with large companies.

Fact : Many arbitrations severely limit the consumer/employee’s right to call witnesses or obtain evidence. That is a big part of the reason why arbitrations might in some cases be quicker than a full-blown lawsuit (just as often, they take the same amount of time or longer). But without witnesses and evidence, you lose. A lot of the time in litigation is spent forcing the employer or big company to cough up important witnesses and evidence which they, understandably, don’t want to surrender to the consumer/employee.

Opponents of arbitration also assert that it stacks the deck against consumers. Research shows otherwise. Generally, consumers do at least as well in arbitration as they would in court. One recent study by the American Arbitration Association showed that consumers prevailed in about 80% of arbitrations they initiated, either through an outright win or voluntary settlement. Similarly, a 2004 report by the National Workrights Institute demonstrated that employees prevailed in 63% of cases brought in arbitration, as opposed to only 43% of cases filed in court.

Fact : Research from neutral experts overwhelmingly shows that arbitration is bad for consumers/employees. See "Is Arbitration Good or Bad for Employees?" .

And in big disputes, consumers can and do win big awards. Recently, an arbitrator ordered a health-insurance company to pay a Los Angeles woman more than $9 million for improperly cutting off her coverage. A few years ago, another arbitrator ordered an extermination company to pay a Florida homeowner more than $4 million after the man’s home was severely damaged by termites.

Fact : Arbitration nearly always leads to a smaller money recovery for consumers/employees than a trial by jury would’ve produced. If the opposite were true, plaintiff’s lawyers and consumers/employees would vote with their wallets and flock to arbitration, not run away from it. But just the opposite is occurring.

To be sure, arbitration is not perfect. Congress has heard anecdotes about the unfairness of a particular arbitration process, either in its design or execution. But the solution is not to eliminate all arbitration.

Fact : The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 does not seek to "eliminate all arbitration", only mandatory arbitrations. The choice is left to consumers/employees whether or not they wish to arbitrate.

Courts can — and do — refuse to enforce arbitration agreements if they are unfair, and they overturn arbitration awards resulting from a biased or corrupt arbitrator.

Fact : Courts are more than ever pinched between rising caseloads and tightening federal and state budgets. Too many courts are housed in decrepit buildings that barely function and are just barely getting by on small rosters of overworked judges. It should come as no surprise, then, that judges are typically very eager to shunt cases off into arbitration and clear them off their desks. Likewise, judges are typically reluctant to overturn arbitration awards unless there is an exceptional level of corruption or bias.

Congress should think long and hard before discarding it in favor of more lawsuits — which may benefit lawyers but will leave most consumers out in the cold.

Fact : Arbitration is more often than not a tool for employers and big companies to keep a lid on the costs of litigation. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 bans the imposition of mandatory arbitration clauses on consumers/employees. That is far from leaving "most consumers out in the cold".

The fact is, mandatory arbitration is good for Fortune 500 companies and employers – the very clients whom the author and her firm represent. It would be interesting to know how many consumers/employees the author represents in her daily practice at Hogan & Hartson. I’m willing to bet – Zero. She sure does seem to be very concerned about their welfare though.

Hmmm, makes you wonder.

Related posts:

1. Support the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 Now!
2. Proof That Arbitration Is Bad for Employees
3. Is Arbitration Good or Bad for Employees?

Now I can point to actual proof that arbitration is bad for employees. The highly-esteemed Workplace Prof Blog reports on a study that was conducted by Alexander Colvin at the Pennsylvania State Department of Labor Studies and Industrial Relations (that’s a mouthful). Colvin’s report, entitled “Empirical Research on Employment Arbitration: Clarity Amidst the Sound and Fury?” (that’s another mouthful!), finds that employees win more often and get bigger awards when they sue their employers in court instead of arbitrating.

Let’s all hope Colvin continues his research so that we can settle this long-standing debate in the employment law field once and for all. Even better, perhaps studies like these can reverse the nation-wide movement toward arbitration (which in my view is anti-employee).

And for you employees, when your boss asks you to sign an arbitration agreement, think twice.

Related posts:

1. Is Arbitration Good or Bad for Employees?
2. Support the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 Now!
3. Arbitration Works Better than Lawsuits . . . But for Whom?

This question is often debated among attorneys, judges and arbitrators. Judges like arbitration because they’re chronically overworked. For instance, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had the honor of being the second busiest federal district court in the entire country, with 11,585 civil cases filed in 2006 alone. Judges view arbitration as a way to get disputes out of their overburdened courts. Arbitrators love arbitration because they charge lots of money. And some (but not all) defense lawyers like arbitration for exactly the same reasons most employees should run away from arbitration.

What is Arbitration?

But before we get to that, what is arbitration? It is a way to resolve legal disputes between parties outside of the court system by hiring a paid referee who acts as the parties’ private judge.

Here are the main ways in which arbitration differs from lawsuits:

1. A judge gets his salary from the State of California. An arbitrator gets paid by the parties (that means YOU), and the bill is usually a whopper.

2. Like a judge or jury, an arbitrator’s decision is binding on the parties. But unlike a judge or jury, if you think the arbitrator made a serious mistake, you CAN NOT appeal it (except in a few extraordinary cases). You’re stuck.

3. Arbitrations are decided by one person, the arbitrator. You can’t request a jury.

4. The arbitrator does not need to be a lawyer (although most tend to be lawyers or retired judges).

5. Arbitrators can set and change all the rules outside of those, if any, which the parties have specifically agreed to. Judges are bound by detailed codes of procedure, rules of court, etc.

6. You and the other parties get to pick the arbitrator. You can’t pick a judge, the court assigns you one when you file your lawsuit.

Why Is Arbitration Bad?

Now, here are the reasons why arbitrations are a bad thing for you, the employee.

1. You could be on the hook for the arbitrator’s fees, especially if you lose. What kind of fees are we talking about? A lawyer told me her client just went through an arbitration regarding a claim worth $100,000. They lost and her client had to pay $60,000 in arbitration fees. Ouch!

2. Arbitrators can limit you in crazy ways which prevent you from proving and winning your case. I heard about one arbitrator who ruled that the plaintiff would not be allowed to conduct any depositions or introduce witnesses. Not even one. For employees who need to rely on witnesses to give critical testimony about what happened, which is probably many of you, you can kiss your case goodbye. Even if you get a good arbitrator, you will still be much more restricted in your ability to gather evidence, request documents from the other side, or conduct witness interviews than you would in court. This hurts the plaintiff (who has the burden to prove her case) and helps the defendant.

3. Arbitrators tend to favor the employer. Why? Simple economics. Big companies are likely to be sued again, so they are more likely to be repeat customers for arbitrators. You the employee are just one individual whom the arbitrator will probably never see again. Statistics have overwhelmingly shown that arbitrators rule more often in favor of the employer against the employee. This keeps the employer coming back for more arbitrations.

4. Arbitrator awards tend to be much smaller than what you might get from a jury. Many arbitrators end up cutting the baby in half. If you are seeking $10,000 and the other side is offering $0, some arbitrators split the difference and award $5,000. This raises the question, did you really need a high-priced arbitrator to do that for you? Arbitrators are also less likely to award punitive damages, designed to punish the wrongdoer, than courts. This hurts because punitive damages can in some cases be bigger than the rest of your damages combined.

5. Arbitrations are hush-hush and confidential. This is great for the employer who doesn’t want its dirty laundry aired in public, which is what happens in a lawsuit. Why does this matter? Public embarrassment is often a powerful threat which employees can use to get employers to come to the negotiating table and settle a dispute.

Can You Avoid Arbitration?

Unfortunately, in many cases, you won’t have a choice about arbitration. Chances are, when you were hired, your employer asked you to sign an arbitration agreement. Which you then promptly forgot about. Or the arbitration agreement may have been contained in the employee handbook which you signed when you received it. If that’s the case, even if you file a lawsuit in court, your employer could drag you kicking and screaming into arbitration by filing a motion with the court telling the judge, hey, we’ve got an arbitration agreement! The judge, being very overworked, will quickly agree and ship you out of his court and into the hands of the waiting arbitrator.

You may still be able to challenge the motion, though. For instance, there is an important California Supreme Court decision called Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4^th 83 which said that arbitration of employment disputes may be denied where the arbitration agreement is “unconscionable” or “fundamentally unfair”.

Also, if you have discrimination, retaliation or medical leave claims under the Fair Employment & Housing Act, Armendariz imposes special requirements on arbitration:

1. Arbitrator must be neutral

2 .Discovery must be adequate

3. Plaintiff must be permitted to recover all types of relief otherwise available in court (monetary damages, injunction, reinstatement, etc.)

4. Final arbitration award has to be issued in writing so as to permit limited court review

5. Employer must pay arbitrator’s fees and all costs unique to arbitration

BUT, these special requirements don’t apply if “an employer and an employee knowingly and voluntarily enter into an arbitration agreement AFTER a dispute has arisen.”

Contact an Attorney

This is exactly why, you should contact an attorney right away if you think you have an employment-related claim. Among other things, he’ll stop you from entering into that arbitration agreement your employer is waving in front of your face after you just complained about racial discrimination.

Here’s to hoping you can stay out of arbitration.

Related posts:

1. Proof That Arbitration Is Bad for Employees
2. Arbitration Works Better than Lawsuits . . . But for Whom?
3. Support the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 Now!