A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
nytimes.com
A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
1–10 of 250 posts
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#2> But a federal judge in San Francisco wasn’t willing to go along with it. The judge, William Alsup, ordered DoorDash in February to proceed with the American Arbitration Association cases and pay the fees.
Ah! Gotta love judge Alsup. Back in SCO vs Novell, and in Oracle vs Google.
> ... in a hearing, Judge Alsup questioned whether the company and its lawyers really believed that.
> "Your law firm and all the defense law firms have tried for 30 years to keep plaintiffs out of court,” the judge told lawyers for Gibson Dunn late last year. “And so finally someone says, ‘OK, we’ll take you to arbitration,’ and suddenly it’s not in your interest anymore. Now you’re wiggling around, trying to find some way to squirm out of your agreement."
> "There is a lot of poetic justice here," the judge added.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#3Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#4The 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 you? Do you owe that fee? Does this vary from one contract to another?
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#5This seems like fantastic news -- if class action suits aren't allowed, then technology now makes it easier to file "cookie cutter" arbitration suits at such low cost that it effectively acts like a small class-action suit anyways.
But I'm worried companies will be able to respond in a way that neutralizes it -- tweaking arbitration terms somehow. I hope not, though. It is absolutely necessary that we hold companies accountable for mass bad behavior, no matter if it's with their customers or employees.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#6As 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?
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#7As 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?
Many people don't like unions, and most companies heavily discourage their employees from joining one.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#8As 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?
Yes exactly. Perhaps the pandemic will change this, but probably not.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#9> But a federal judge in San Francisco wasn’t willing to go along with it. The judge, William Alsup, ordered DoorDash in February to proceed with the American Arbitration Association cases and pay the fees. Ah! Gotta love judge Alsup. Back in SCO vs Novell, and in Oracle vs Google. > ... in a hearing, Judge Alsup questioned whether the company and its lawyers really believed that. > "Your law firm and all the defense…
What was his involvement in SCO vs Novell? He doesn't seem to be mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group,_Inc._v._Novell,_Inc.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#10This seems like fantastic news -- if class action suits aren't allowed, then technology now makes it easier to file "cookie cutter" arbitration suits at such low cost that it effectively acts like a small class-action suit anyways. But I'm worried companies will be able to respond in a way that neutralizes it -- tweaking arbitration terms somehow. I hope not, though. It is absolutely necessary that we hold companies…
In cases where the arbitration clause is already in place, and the arbitrations have been filed, that would likely be difficult to do, as a result of the Alsup ruling.
Where the arbitrations haven't begun yet, there's certainly some scope for attempting to neutralize this, by changing provider or terms. Interestingly, there's a potential conflict-of-interest brewing [1] around whether DoorDash's lawyers were so tightly involved in the writing of the CPR's rules, that the CPR sought their approval before publishing them [2]...
If that is the case, things could start to get quite interesting indeed, particularly for CPR, who are not looking in a particularly good light after discovery in the case.
> The documents in the case were unsealed on Wednesday, revealing that the defendants were so involved in the protocol that CPR would not publish it until DoorDash and its lawyers gave the go ahead, including a sign off on the fee structure by DoorDash’s head of litigation, Gregg Farano. In his written approval of the Protocol in an Oct. 31 email to Waxman, Farano asked that CPR let him know when the new rules were published “so that we may link to it in our terms and conditions.”
Alsup certainly seems to think there's something worth the public knowing about here [3]:
> Judge Alsup also said the public deserves to see the CPR emails, since the material “would be useful to the public in evaluating the true extent to which (CPR) is impartial.”
[1] https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/12/20/gibson-dunn-doord...
[2] https://prospect.org/labor/doordash-company-arbitration-stor...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-mass-arbi-lawsu...