Salon Magazine says yes. I take a more positive view of them. Salon says:
These hidden forced arbitration clauses lurk behind many of the most brutal injustices facing consumers and workers. For example, a court in Texas recently held that a woman who washed dishes at a fast food restaurant could not sue in court for damages from personal injuries she sustained on the job. The problem had nothing to do with her argument that she’d been treated unfairly; the problem was that her employee handbook had contained a forced arbitration agreement that dictated that her claims were to be decided by a private arbitrator.
This sort of thing makes me wonder: (1) Could she bring her claim in arbitration or does "could not sue in court" mean for some reason "could not bring her claim at all"? (2) If she could bring her claim in arbitration, did she, and to what result?
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Friday, November 21, 2014
“Mandatory pre-dispute arbitration is procedurally unfair to consumers, and jeopardizes one of the fundamental rights of Americans; the right to be heard and seek judicial redress for our claims,” the Attorneys General wrote to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray, himself a former Ohio Attorney General. “These contractual requirements are neither voluntary nor readily understandable for most consumers. Often consumers do not recognize the significance of these provisions, if they are aware of them at all. “
The following states’ AGs signed onto the letter: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Any Republicans among them?