This Week in Arbitration
NPR has a two part piece on home construction in Texas – Did Builder’s Clout Trap Couple In Dream Home? and Critics: Texas Agency Favors Builders Over Buyers. The first part focuses on Bob and Jane Cull, who spent 13 years fighting Perry Homes in arbitration and in court; the couple actually won in arbitration, but Perry Homes appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court and finally won. It looks like binding mandatory arbitration is only binding if the consumer loses.
More arbitration news, after the jump.
Here’s some bad news: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the employer in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, finding that even statutory rights (in this case, the plaintiffs alleged age discrimination) could be forced into arbitration if the collective bargaining agreement called for it. (Full opinion here)
The Searle Civil Justice Institute at Northwestern University School of Law released a report by Kansas Law professor Chris Drahozal saying that consumers received “some relief” in 53.3% of arbitration claims. You can read the full report, or check out the Chicago Tribune’s coverage. Public Citizen has a response on their Watchdog Blog. Contrasting Professor Drahozal’s findings with the Public Citizen’s report detailing how consumers lost 94% of arbitration cases in California is left as an exercise for the reader.
On to the good news: The U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the consumer (AP, Law.com) in her dispute with her credit card company in Vaden v. Discover. Discover sued Betty Vaden in Maryland state court in 2003; when she filed a class-action counterclaim, Discover tried to force her suit into arbitration – while leaving their own suit against her in court. (Full opinion here)
The Montana Supreme Court rejected an arbitration clause that was added in a “bill stuffer” notice. (Full opinion here)
In another victory for consumers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found a T-Mobile arbitration agreement’s class action waiver “substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.” (Full opinion here)
A bill to prohibit pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts has been introduced in Maine.
A Pittsburg woman has won the right to have her sexual discrimination case heard in court, after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that since she was never informed of or agreed to the company’s arbitration agreement, she was not bound by it. (Full opinion here)