A California bill that would ban forced arbitration heads to Gov. Newsom

From today’s Los Angeles Times:

When companies in California tell job candidates they have to give up their right to sue the company for most disputes, a bill headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk would let the candidates decline without fear of losing their job offer.

The bill is the latest effort by state governments to limit private companies from imposing forced arbitration agreements, whose surge in popularity has contributed to the difficulty of workers suing their bosses for sexual harassment in the era of #MeToo.

Federal law and some U.S. Supreme Court decisions do not let state governments ban these arbitration agreements. Supporters argue that the bill in California would not ban arbitration agreements, but make them optional: Employees could sign them, but they may not be punished for declining to. The bill would not affect existing arbitration agreements and would apply only to people hired after Jan. 1, 2020.

Still, Republicans and the state’s business groups said the bill is illegal and would probably be challenged in court. The state Senate voted Thursday to approve the bill.

The Economic Policy Institute says more than 67% of all employers in California require workers to sign these arbitration agreements. Companies like these agreements because arbitration costs less than going to court and moves faster. Labor groups argue that arbitration puts employees at a disadvantage because the employees don’t have an attorney and are subject to the ruling of an arbitrator who is often selected and paid for by the company.

Read the complete article here.

The 9th Circuit just blew up mandatory arbitration in consumer cases

From today’s Reuter’s Online News:

In a trio of rulings on Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blessed a tactic that will allow plaintiffs lawyers litigating California consumer class actions to defeat defense motions to compel arbitration. If appellate rulings in the three cases – Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Tillage v. Comcast and McArdle v. AT&T Mobility – hold up, they represent a dramatic twist in corporations’ long-running, and mostly successful, campaign to force employees and consumers to arbitrate their claims individually instead of banding together in class actions.

If you don’t believe me, just ask the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association. In an amicus in one of the cases, the pro-business groups warned that under the theory the 9th Circuit just adopted, plaintiffs lawyers will be able to evade arbitration in “virtually every case” invoking California consumer protection statutes.

“It’s a very big deal,” said Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon, who represents consumers in the 9th Circuit’s Rent-A-Center case. And not just in California, according to Rubin. The three 9th Circuit decisions, as I’ll explain, involved consumers’ rights under several California statutes to seek injunctions forcing corporations to change their conduct. But Rubin told me the 9th Circuit’s analysis may just as well apply to other states’ consumer and employment statutes that include injunctive rights.

AT&T Mobility, which is represented at the 9th Circuit by Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown, said in a statement that it is considering its options: “We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision, which we believe is inconsistent with the arbitration provision agreed upon by the parties, the Federal Arbitration Act and United States Supreme Court precedent.” Comcast counsel Mark Perry of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher declined to provide a statement. Rent-A-Center’s lawyer, Robert Friedman of Littler Mendelson, did not respond to my email requesting comment.

The three appeals called upon the 9th Circuit to review the California Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in McGill v. Citibank. In McGill, the state justices held that as a matter of California public policy, corporations cannot require consumers to waive their right to seek a public injunction. The California Supreme Court also held, without engaging in deep analysis, that California’s policy is not pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Read the complete article here.

Google workers want to end mandatory arbitration—Here’s why this matters

From today’s Washington Post:

Employees at Google recently organized a phone drive to lobby Congress to end the practice of mandatory or forced arbitration, in which an arbitrator — typically designated by the company — resolves a legal dispute, rather than a judge.

Over the last three decades, more and more corporations have forced their employees or customers to sign these contracts, agreeing to take their disputes to private arbitration instead of to court. A recent studyestimates that currently more than 60 million U.S. workers signed these mandatory arbitration agreements when they were hired. Anotherfound that, last year, consumers signed almost three times as many consumer arbitration agreements as there are people living in the U.S.

Arbitration’s spread has become controversial. Many on the left criticize it, while many conservatives support it. So it may be surprising that liberal reformers were the first to make arbitration popular. Here’s how the Supreme Court and Congress helped change arbitration from a liberal cause to conservative rallying cry.ADVERTISING

Businesses win — and employees lose — more often in arbitration than in court

Arbitration produces clear winners and losers. Employees win less frequently and receive lower damages in arbitration than in litigation. Employers win more frequently, especially if they use the same arbitrators repeatedly. That’s hardly surprising, given that the employers typically choose the arbitrators. Given recent public criticism, many prominent companies have discontinued mandatory arbitration requirements for sexual harassment claims.

The Supreme Court has helped expand private arbitration. Just last week, in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, conservatives decided that workers cannot join to bring similar complaints against a company through class arbitration unless their contracts specifically allow it. The 5-4 majority opinion relied heavily upon a controversial case from last term, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.

These cases are just the latest in a three decades-long trajectory toward disallowing anything that discourages private arbitration, as part of a larger political strategy employed by business-friendly conservatives in Congress, the courts, and the private sector to constrict both access to courts and class-action lawsuits.

Read the complete article here..

SCOTUS Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts Barring Class Actions

From today’s New York Times:

 The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to prohibit workers from banding together to take legal action over workplace issues.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority. The court’s decision could affect some 25 million employment contracts.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said the court’s conclusion was dictated by a federal law favoring arbitration and the court’s precedents. If workers were allowed to band together to press their claims, he wrote, “the virtues Congress originally saw in arbitration, its speed and simplicity and inexpensiveness, would be shorn away and arbitration would wind up looking like the litigation it was meant to displace.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a sign of profound disagreement. In her written dissent, she called the majority opinion “egregiously wrong.” In her oral statement, she said the upshot of the decision “will be huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well being of vulnerable workers.”

Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to address the matter.

Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who studies arbitrations and class actions, said the ruling was unsurprising in light of earlier Supreme Court decisions. Justice Gorsuch, he added, “appears to have put his cards on the table as firmly in favor of allowing class actions to be stamped out through arbitration agreements.”

As a result, Professor Fitzpatrick said “it is only a matter of time until the most powerful device to hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds is lost altogether.”

But Gregory F. Jacob, a lawyer with O’Melveny & Myers in Washington, said the decision would have a limited impact, as many employers already use the contested arbitration clauses. “This decision thus will not see a huge increase in the use of such provisions,” he said, “but it does protect employers’ settled expectations and avoids placing our nation’s job providers under the threat of additional burdensome litigation drain.”

Read the complete article here.

Federal consumer protection agency announces reform agenda for 2014

From the New York Times by Tara Siegel Bernard:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has already overcome considerable political resistance, has managed to pack some punches in the last few months on behalf of the purchasing public it represents.

In December, the agency ordered refunds by major companies for misleading business practices: American Express, more than $59 million; GE Capital Retail Bank, up to $34 million. A joint settlement with Ocwen Financial totaled about $2 billion. The list goes on.

And on Friday, new mortgage rules and consumer protections went into effect that were part of the financial overhaul bill that created the agency, which opened its doors just over two years ago.

Yes, there’s a new sheriff in town. But the true test of the consumer watchdog’s mettle will be in the year ahead, when the agency is set to take on several thorny issues that are likely to draw more resistance from the financial services lobby and give more impetus to Republican opponents in Congress who continue to try to reduce the bureau’s power. As recently as November, a House committee passed several bills to do just that.

(The agency’s new director, Richard Cordray, whose confirmation was being blocked by Republicans, was finally confirmed in July, two years after his appointment by President Obama.)

Consumer advocates say they will be watching several big issues closely, including something called forced arbitration, which amounts to waiving the right to sue in some kinds of cases, as well as debt collection and overdraft charges.

The consumer agency has already begun studying all of these areas, but how far it will go remains to be seen. Several consumer advocates, consumer law experts and others have weighed in on what they would like to see the agency accomplish in the year ahead on these issues and others: Arbitration, Overdraft Fees, Debt Collection, Student Loans, and Credit Report Disputes.

Click here to read the entire article.