StrangeSox

Rent-A-Center v Jackson, which I cited a few pages ago, involves mandatory arbitration that barred the plaintiff from filing any judicial suit; they were required to go to arbitration, even if the arbitration clause itself was at issue. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf RAC employees were contractually barred from filing suit against RAC. Everything had to go through an arbitrator. Why do we want to hand over our judicial system and our civil rights to mandatory arbitration proceedings that are not held to the same standards and requirements as judicial rulings but contain the same weight of enforcement? This is not a blanket attack on all arbitration; clearly, it has its benefits. But it is an aggressive questioning of the courts' willingness to hand over the rights of consumers and employees to corporations who are free to bar them from their right to judicial litigation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) The measure comes against peers, so those ups and downs wouldn't matter. You'd be compared against people in the same boat. But, if Balta's correct, it means your performance is really being judged on what the teacher two or three years ago did, and the teacher a couple years ahead of you is getting judged on your teaching. That doesn't seem right, because you'd never actually be judging the person based on their own performance.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) We're talking about two things here. Arbitration decisions are legally binding yes, that's true. But in most case arbitration decisions are not the final resolution of the matter. They're more, hey lets talk with this guy and see what he thinks and maybe he'll help us reach a fair settlement. It's more of a neutral parties' recommendation for a resolution of the matter. My point was that these arbitration systems are probably not binding on either party unless they've agreed to that arrangement beforehand. That might well be in the agreement you sign with these companies, I dunno. But they have to leave you the option of also filing a suit in court (before deciding to go to arbitration). My understanding was that a company can't force you to ONLY go through arbitration, with no other recourse. This is the crux of the argument, and I still maintain that your position here is wrong. Companies can and do routinely force customers to agree to mandatory binding arbitration clauses that require them to forfeit their rights to file a suit in the judicial system or be part of a class action. The arbitration decisions are final and enforceable, and while there is opportunity for judicial review, it is a very narrow review and extremely rare for a decision to be changed.

That's the 2011 agreement on their website, not the 2006 agreement, so I don't know what wording has changed. The petition references it in the appendix, but the pdf doesn't include the appendices. It does lead to confusion for me, because every single summary of the case, sans Scalia but including plenty of other lawyers, indicates that AT&T is attempting to compel arbitration under the arbitration agreement. Additionally, it still forces you to forgo your rights to a trial-by-jury and class action, so Scalia's wording is somewhat generous to AT&T's position. It appears that AT&T's arbitration clause was on the more consumer-friendly side but it was still very limiting. And, again, the problem with this ruling isn't just this specific case, it's that it applies to all arbitration clauses and that many of them do prevent access to the courts, either in full or in part. We both keep going back and forth between AT&T's clause and mandatory arbitration clauses in general, which is muddying the waters.

Need to get the funding from somewhere

The problem still is linking accountability to the Federal dollars with a national standard of evaluation, right?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Sounds like the report is bogus. I can't find it anywhere other than the forum I read it. fyi http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

I believe the national standards are changing. I know Illinois is undergoing large changes right now.

Sounds awesome.

A paper examining arbitration clauses I can't find the date, but it does include this example from an AT&T agreement:

AT&T's current Arbitration Agreement! You waive the right to trial by jury or to participate in a class action regardless of the forum.

btw, here's where I'm pulling the documents from: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases...y-v-concepcion/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) I know the feeling. But saying "Do the googling!" isn't an adequate response. At this point? Yeah, it is, because I've supported my claim thoroughly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) Sir, seriously, do the Googling yourself and find the support if you're the one making an argument. I've repeatedly posted links to amicus briefs, quotes from the various States in support of the Concepcions, and a guide from a pro-consumer group explaining mandatory arbitration and what it means. I've been met with "nuh uh" and "well Scalia phrased it this way, so It Must Be So."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) Edit: Although I'll admit this isn't just any blogger, and it appears he reviewed the oral arguments. But still, I have yet to see anyone actually say Scalia's summary of the agreement was flat out wrong. I'm not saying that he was flat-out wrong, just that it was either misleading or perhaps poorly worded. The Concepcions felt they were defrauded. Rather than go through an individual arbitration, they elected to file suit and challenge the arbitration agreement itself as unconscionable. Note that it wasn't an either/or option, but that they had to first get the arbitration agreement voided. They challenged on the grounds that the agreement restricted any class action, and California found that to be unconscionable. AT&T argued that that law is against the FAA and that they must go through the arbitration process, as agree in the contract. It would be nice if I could find the actual contract somewhere, but perhaps the wording of the 9th circuit will suffice to illustrate that these agreements force you to go to arbitration instead of the judicial system. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin...27/08-56394.pdf Regardless, as Dorf points out, the specific provisions and how consumer-friendly this specific agreement was are irrelevant to this decision.

Someone should alert the courts that mandatory arbitration doesn't exist! Think about it, if they could simply file a suit in court, they would have and this entire thing would be a non-issue. Your argument that these agreements do not compel arbitration makes no sense. The various amicus briefs, also prepared by lawyers and their highly qualified staffs, put this plainly, not just a "blogger or reporter," even if that particular blog is by a Cornell Law professor. Just google for "mandatory arbitration" or "forced arbitration" and keep trying to say you can file suit and avoid arbitration with these sorts of agreements.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:24 AM) TY. Nevermind then, Bears probably owe the Ravens the pick here in good faith. Why? The Ravens did the exact same thing and didn't give any good faith picks to Minnesota.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) WTF?? Everything I read said the Ravens called the office, but the Bears didn't. Why is it so hard for the true story to come out? If Newsome is adamant that no deal was consummated because he didn't t call Bussert, then hell no I don't give 'em that 4th rounder. Very interesting. But clearly, the Bears' front office once again proves how moronic they are. Luckily, it appears that they made the first pick in round one. No no no, that's a quote from Newsome from 2002 or 2003 when they did the same thing to Minnesota.

Interesting analysis of AT&T v Concepcion. I'll again note that every single thing I have read regarding this case, sans Scalia's description, points to mandatory arbitration and AT&T blocking the filing of any civil suit.

In that case, screw 'em.

That doesn't really follow.

Superman threatens to renounce US citizenship

Bulls in 3. After winning the first 3 games by an average of 80 points, the Hawks forfeit to save face.

Awesome quote from Cutler, and yeah concussions do suck.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) That show was so bad through the first few episodes. But at some point they really hit their groove and it's been hilarious ever since. I don't get why people say this. Sure, Season 2 was significantly better, but I thought Season 1 was alright, certainly better than 90% of the garbage out there.