"That all Courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by the due course of law" Contracts do not destroy the courts, they have a duty to perform. The courts shall be OPEN.
I've heard that arbitrators are usually a third party picked by the company and not the individual. It would lead me to think that an arbitrator has an interest in protecting the company more so than an individual. Is this true or have I been scowling at arbitration clauses in contracts needlessly over the past several years?
@@chriss6356 Incorrect. The arbitration provider (i.e. AAA, JAMS) will appoint an arbitrator from its roster. The parties can object to that arbitrator, but the decision whether or not to provide a different arbitrator is entirely within their discretion. So if they want, they can force a bad arbitrator on you.
Just to add 1¢ To this dialogue.also 1¢ in the form of a question. Which makes 2¢. People are persons but not all persons are people. I say that to remind the gentlemen you are man true indeed. I think it's ok to also say you are a business if your not a business then your an employee. Arbitrators would mediate due to contracts. Most men have a line of credit Ssn by default you are a company. Family is also a legal term. See blacks or barrons law dictionary.
2:05 But don't they often have exceptions for small claims court? In other words, you can't throw out small cases by having it take place in an arbitration court, if they sue you in small claims court and they have an exception for such. If it's a large sum of money, you're probably better off actually in a real courtroom. At least from my understanding.
I have a arbitration provision in my car finance agreement. I sent them a revocation of POA to remove all security interest and proceeds but they aren’t complying. I’ll like to sue for dealers and securities fraud . Is this a case you can take
It sounds like arbitration ultimately is to the benefit of the corporation, hence why they include this clause. I have an issue with Verizon wireless and wanted to sue them in small claims court. According to their website I need to pursue Arbitration first, presumably there is an arbitration clause in the paperwork I signed when I signed up for service. If I am not satisfied with the arbitration, do I still have the option to sue in small claims court? I just want to make sure I don't forfeit the small claims option by pursuing arbitration.
I need help badly! These people are causing health issues, displacement, stealing my bank account and changes to every account there is that's linked to me and my daughter. I have went through this for 13 years,. One health insurance has settled and I can claim the 250k twice but why did the keep this hacking from me when I called them?
I have a insurance company ( auto adjustor from the other drivers side) lowballing my vehicle and using bad faith practices ( which you can't take to court in PA), the paperwork didnt have the appraiser signature ( required title 31: 62) and she lied about the inspection location ( not done at my home but just through photos). I had to fight to get both updated and changed and now one of the vehicle their comparing mine to ( after I researched the vin) is a totaled out vehicle at an action house. I honestly don't know what to do at this point. I've contacted her supervisor ( whose on her side naturally) and I've filled a complaint at the insurance state department who can take up to 30 days just to get back to me Can I file an property Arbitration claim at the court house ?...and how ?
What kind of lawyer do you seek after a wrongful arbitration settlement? I’m with a union and they are not giving me any advice, information or representation in any way and I know for a fact they are not sharing to the impartial umpire facts to win my case. The are negligent and practicing unfair labor tactics. Can I seek a labor or employment law attorney?
First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.
First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.
Can union and employer change the arbitration clause in the CBA at arbitration to benefit the employer and removing the 30-60 days for arbitrator to rule to indefinite?
I have a question so say that you went through arbitration and they want you to sign but you dont agree with arbitration can you still do something about it
If you signed an arbitration agreement, you are stuck with it unless there is an opt-out provision. If there is one, you have to follow the opt-out conditions precisely and do so quickly.
Thank you for the informative video. I made the mistake of signing a contract that said that if the employer and I had any disagreements then we would have to go through arbitration. We have a disagreement but he gives many excuses for not wanting to go through arbitration. I imagine that he doesn't want to go because it will cost him money and he might actually lose because, I think it's very obvious that he needs to pay me for the work that I did. How can I force him to go through arbitration?
It depends on what your arbitration agreement says. If it names a specific arbitration provider, like AAA or JAMS, then you can just submit a demand for arbitration according to their rules. If there is nothing like that provided, then you may have to file a lawsuit first.
This same situation happened to me. I actually used it to void my company arbitration contract for 2,000 employees. You have to be creative. I was arguing with my HR lady over late wages. I forced arbitration because it's company rules. HR lady said she doesn't want to pay for arbitration. She will consult with lawyer and get back to me. The next day, I email her. She has no idea what I'm talking about. I signed a "waiver of jury trial" contract. There is no arbitration contract. I asked for a copy of the waiver of jury trial. No copies. Company lawyer also has no idea what I'm saying. There is a "waiver of jury trial" contract. There is no arbitration contract. Never heard of such a thing. I asked for a copy of the waiver. No copies. Can't find it. Everyone started lying and saying there is no arbitration contract. I kept arguing until I realized there is no arbitration contract. No copies. 2,000 employees are free to go to jury trial. Company lawyer was speechless. He gave up and offered a blank check to go away. My company earns $200 million per year. I told him my memory can be erased.... for $200 million. ^_^ I know how to void arbitration contracts so I always volunteer to sign contracts.
How can I reach you? I really believe I have a case, but in reading through the terms and conditions of the particular company, I am under JAMS arbitration.
In my experience, yes. Although I think that AAA makes it MUCH easier to begin a case, and JAMS maintains a much smaller roster of arbiters, which means that if you are not in a large city, you'll have an arbitrator from far away. AAA usually has someone reasonably local.
You probably could. A lot of arb clauses have exceptions for small claims court. Basically, if you are suing for such a small amount of money, the corporation is unlikely to spend the money required to pay lawyers to enforce an arbitration agreement. They'd probably just try the case.
