Basically, the strategy is "death by a thousand paper cuts." There may be legit cases for it, but in the end, it's a wrong solution. It could easily explode to be abused for minor complaints where a real class action lawsuit would be more proper. There should be a cost to a frivolous lawsuit. This seems to eliminate it.
A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
131–140 of 250 posts
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> doesn't have any terms which stop payment because the schools close during the year And so they shouldn't! In many (most?) US states, the public schools are unconditionally funded by the state based on student enrollment figures. Cutting teacher pay during a closure under such a system would be a purely greedy move.
If my comment seemed to imply I thought they shouldn't I didn't mean to. I agree that they should get paid. I don't know how it works in the majority of states but I know the model of mostly state funding based upon student enrollment is not universal. In my state the majority of funding is from local tax revenues. For example the budget for my local school district is approximately $1.3 billion. $370 million comes f…
I hadn't considered the local tax aspect. I understand that many areas are projecting large shortfalls in the near future, so I suppose there could be some issues. I guess it would probably depend on how the education taxes were levied in a given jurisdiction (property, sales, or something else).
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#133Oh, it's even worse than that for companies. The 9th and 10th circuits have both agreed that if the defense refuses to pay for arbitration, plaintiff can go to court. They're no longer barred from suing at that point. Incidentally, the AAA rules have some useful provisions in consumer disputes. Either party can request to transfer the case to small claims court. At least in California, that's not only cheaper, small…
I took State Farm to small claims court. They paid to upgrade it to general division at the last possible moment, which significantly increases the logistics and complexity of the case. I think they did it as an intimidation tactic. Corporations are horrible.
What was the result?
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#134The article mentions 6,000 arbitration cases against DoorDash amounted to $9 million in fees from the American Arbitration Association. That's $1,500 a pop! If you have a dispute with a company, and are bound by an arbitration clause, it seems like you have a $1,500 hammer to hit them with? (Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees). What happens if the arbitrator decides the case against y…
Does that mean that someone is getting $1500 because their pizza arrived cold? I hope not.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#135Oh, it's even worse than that for companies. The 9th and 10th circuits have both agreed that if the defense refuses to pay for arbitration, plaintiff can go to court. They're no longer barred from suing at that point. Incidentally, the AAA rules have some useful provisions in consumer disputes. Either party can request to transfer the case to small claims court. At least in California, that's not only cheaper, small…
I took State Farm to small claims court. They paid to upgrade it to general division at the last possible moment, which significantly increases the logistics and complexity of the case. I think they did it as an intimidation tactic. Corporations are horrible.
State Farm is a mutual company. That means that the policyholders (i.e. you) actually own it.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#136The article mentions 6,000 arbitration cases against DoorDash amounted to $9 million in fees from the American Arbitration Association. That's $1,500 a pop! If you have a dispute with a company, and are bound by an arbitration clause, it seems like you have a $1,500 hammer to hit them with? (Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees). What happens if the arbitrator decides the case against y…
> What happens if the arbitrator decides the case against you? Do you owe that fee? Does this vary from one contract to another?
They can award fees, yes. Usually depends on a myriad of factors, much the same as the court uses when determining sanctions and fees.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#137As a European, reading these articles on arbitration, no-compete, required licenses, 'right-to-work', tipping, "gig work", firing over zoom, and so much more, it seems U.S. workers could really use some collective bargaining? Here unions are the obvious century-old solution to improve working conditions, why don't workers organize there? Are we just lucky here, like with universal health care?
Americans are much richer than Europeans so this doesn’t seem like an obvious choice. As of 2011 the UK and France were poorer than all but two US states, Germany poorer than all but six[1]. That understates how much richer the US is. Look at average household consumption [2]. The US, 5% of the human race, is behind Hong Kong, a city state and almost $10,000 ahead of Switzerland. Average individual consumption would probably show the US as number 1 given bigger households than either Hong Kong or Switzerland. And as far as working conditions go in the US it’s generally actually possible to get a job. All of Southern Europe and most of Northern Europe have higher unemployment than the US and has for decades.
[1] https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/06/americas-economic-succe...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_househo...
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#138The article mentions 6,000 arbitration cases against DoorDash amounted to $9 million in fees from the American Arbitration Association. That's $1,500 a pop! If you have a dispute with a company, and are bound by an arbitration clause, it seems like you have a $1,500 hammer to hit them with? (Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees). What happens if the arbitrator decides the case against y…
> That's $1,500 a pop!
Some arbitrators make over $1,000 per hour.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#139> DoorDash got the bill for the 6,000 claims — more than $9 million. > DoorDash balked, arguing in court that it couldn’t be sure that all of the claimants were legitimate dashers. The American Arbitration Association said the company had to pay anyway. It refused, and the claims were essentially dead. How is that legal for binding arbitration? Didn't both sides agree that disputes will be resolved by arbitration?
Many companies require you sign a contracting to use their service (or in this case to be employed by them) that says you agree to binding arbitration
No longer binding if the company breachs the arbitration clause. They're going to be sued if the issue is real.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally speaking, what does "a resolution, not a settlement" mean? Or is that not a general legal term?
No idea if there's a legal distinction but a settlement usually makes it sound like one side admitted fault even if that isn't the case
Settlement is one type of resolution. A settlement is just an agreement for one party to drop claims against the other in exchange for something of value (usually money). Usually there is no admission of anything by any of the parties and the exact terms are confidential.