What Are the Restrictions on Using Arbitration Services?

Arbitration is a process that is used to settle disputes between two parties without going to court. It is often used in employment and consumer contracts, and is referred to as mandatory or mandatory arbitration. This means that if the employee or consumer does not agree to the arbitration, they will be denied employment or the ability to purchase the product or service. In 1991, the Supreme Court gave employers the right to require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a mandatory term and condition of employment in the Gilmer decision.

This changed the image of arbitration as a creation of the unionized workplace. In 1999, the top 10 banks that issue credit cards, including American Express, Citibank, First USA, Capital One, Chase and Discover, formed a group called “the Arbitration Coalition” to promote the use of arbitration clauses that prohibit class actions. Consumers have filed successful claims against arbitration when it would be too expensive for them to arbitrate their claims. The Supreme Court has also reduced the standard for reviewing arbitral awards, making it harder for parties to appeal an arbitral decision to a court. This means that it is important for arbitrators to remain neutral and impartial in order to ensure fairness in the process. Even if an entire contract is invalid, the arbitration clause can still stand because it is considered separable from the rest of the contract. The AT&T customer agreement included an arbitration clause that prohibited class action lawsuits and class arbitration.

Courts are divided on whether a court or arbitrator should decide whether or not the parties' agreement was intended to allow collective arbitration. Before the 1990s, arbitration was rarely used in non-unionized workplaces because there was no union present that could act as a partner of the employer in establishing arbitration. Even though arbitration cases are easier and cheaper to prosecute, large differences in outcomes can reduce the financial incentive and ability of plaintiffs' lawyers to accept cases brought by employees covered by mandatory arbitration. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case concerning the ability of a state court to interpret arbitration clauses.