Tag Archives: arbitration

Latest Posts



Tags Cloud

Online Dispute Resolution and Personal Injury

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), an umbrella concept that includes arbitration and mediation, has grown into a popular approach to solving legal disputes. It often arises in commercial disputes, where many contracts require the parties in a dispute to pursue mediation or arbitration before anyone can sue. It can also come up in cases involving personal injury. In recent years online ADR has become an increasingly viable and robust alternative to conducting relatively expensive, in-person processes. Should someone who has been injured agree to pursue the online ADR approach instead of filing a lawsuit? Cost and speed are the chief reasons for pursuing resolution of legal disputes through mediation and arbitration. Mediation in particular can offer a particularly speedy and inexpensive route to a settlement. In mediation the two sides of a dispute sit down to negotiate a resolution of their problems, with a mediator acting as a neutral facilitator. The mediator isn’t a judge, and the two sides in the dispute don’t need to go through the complex and sometimes expensive process of developing evidence that would be suitable for a court. To reach a final outcome, the parties in a mediation need to reach agreement about how they’ll resolve their dispute. In the case of personal injury, that might involve the responsible party agreeing to pay a certain amount of money to the injured person. Arbitration is essentially “litigation lite,” with an arbitrator standing in for a judge. Arbitration is streamlined and simplified when compared to litigation, but rules of evidence and procedure make the process considerably closer to litigation than mediation is. The two sides to the dispute can call witnesses, present evidence, and make their arguments in an adversarial setting. At the end of the process the arbitrator will reach a conclusion which, in some circumstances, may be binding upon both sides of the dispute. Online dispute resolution is a concept in its relative infancy with a spotty history. Websites offering various kinds of dispute resolution services have come and gone over the years, mostly with little success to show for it. In theory, an online process offers many of the same advantages of mediation or, to a lesser degree, arbitration. It can be relatively fast, informal, and confidential. It can also be conducted between parties who are located anywhere in the world, removing barriers that might make other forms of ADR difficult (cost of travel, disability concerns, and so forth). The potential downsides of online dispute resolution are considerable. For starters, any conclusion reached in an online forum may not be legally enforceable in a court. It also doesn’t necessarily provide a mechanism for resolving difficult questions, which can make it unsuitable for controversies where important facts are in dispute. This is a common problem with personal injury cases. Complex issues like medical diagnoses will be difficult or impossible to resolve in a satisfactory way without the tools available in more formal settings. Even in cases where an online solution may offer a fast, simple approach to resolving a dispute, it’s important to consult with an attorney to understand the benefits and risks of such an approach. An attorney can help the client protect his or her interests, avoid traps set by the defense, and evaluate whether an online process needs to be abandoned for another approach. For over 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented Las Vegas clients in personal injury cases. To learn how we can be of help in your case, call us today for a free attorney consultation. We can be reached at 702-388-4476 or send us a request through our site.

Mandatory Arbitration and Employment Class Action Suits

Mandatory Arbitration and Employment Class Action Suits
Over the last decade employers have increasingly added mandatory individual arbitration clauses to their employment agreements. These clauses require any dispute between the employee and employer to go through arbitration instead of litigation, and prohibit employees from grouping together to pursue litigation as a class. Employers prefer this arrangement in part because arbitration is faster and cheaper than conventional litigation, but workers who have serious grievances against their employers often feel that the clauses are unfair.

Federal law favors arbitration

Employees who try to escape their arbitration agreement with employers face a difficult legal road in courts unless there are technical problems with the contract that might make it otherwise unenforceable. One reason for that is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a law that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled preempts state laws that would otherwise seek to limit the enforceability of arbitration clauses. The FAA provides that federal and state courts must enforce arbitration agreements unless they are invalid on other contract grounds, such as fraud or unconscionability. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the FAA to essentially override state laws that seek to limit arbitration in certain areas, such as employment contracts. In May its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 (May 21, 2018), garnered media attention by tossing out California’s judicial precedent that disfavored mandatory individual arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Some have interpreted Epic Systems to mean that employers can escape class action lawsuits for employment disputes simply by requiring all employees to enter into arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. Although the ruling related to a California case, its holding probably will be applied to Nevada cases as well.

Pursuing a remedy within the scope of an arbitration agreement

In a nutshell, the Epic Systems case confirmed that employees cannot simply argue that such clauses are invalid for being unconscionable as a matter of course. The FAA’s protection for arbitration clauses requires employees who want to invalidate their employment contracts to find other reasoning. As such, employees may be limited in their ability to band together to protect their rights. That does not mean that an employee who has signed an arbitration agreement is without legal recourse. Arbitration proceedings can be to the employee’s benefit as well. Arbitration tends to be faster and cheaper than ordinary litigation. Even though arbitration can have downsides, like confidentiality and potential bias among arbitrators who see employers as potential clients, an employee with a legitimate grievance should not hesitate to pursue an action anyway.

Call a Las Vegas attorney to discuss your case

The law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has helped clients in the Las Vegas area recover compensation for over 45 years. If you have concerns about how the arbitration clause in your employment agreement may affect your rights to pursue legal action against your employer, call us today for a free consultation. We’re available at 702-388-4476 or contact us through our website.

How Mandatory Arbitration Can Limit Nevada Employee Rights

How Mandatory Arbitration Can Limit Nevada Employee Rights
Employers are increasingly including mandatory-arbitration clauses in the agreements employees sign after being hired. The clauses are designed to prevent employees from filing lawsuits against their employers for just about any kind of employment-related issue, from unpaid overtime to unlawful discrimination and wrongful termination. Instead of going to court, employees are required to submit disputes to a private arbitrator. Because our legal system favors freedom of contract, an employee who is subject to a mandatory-arbitration clause may have no option but to comply. For employees the arbitration process can offer some benefits when compared to litigation, but it has a range of potential problems that make it a mixed blessing.

Arbitration has some advantages over ordinary litigation . . .

Arbitration can be thought of as a “light” form of litigation. Like litigation, lawyers usually represent both sides in the dispute, there are rules governing what can be used as evidence, and there are rules of procedure that in theory ensure that both sides receive a fair hearing. For employees, arbitration has two main benefits over litigation: it tends to be faster and cheaper. The backlog in our court system means a new case can take years to resolve, while an arbitration firm tends to not have the same bandwidth problem. And because the rules are simpler and the process less formal, attorneys’ fees and other costs tend to be lower.

. . . but many disadvantages.

For an employee the downsides of arbitration can be significant. Here are just a few of the issues:
  • No option to appeal. A typical arbitration clause will provide that the results of the arbitration are binding and can’t be appealed to the courts. An employee who isn’t satisfied with the outcome of binding arbitration may have no right to appeal the decision.
  • One reason employers favor private arbitration is the secrecy of the process. The results of private arbitration typically are confidential, and quite often the employee is bound by an obligation to keep the results secret as well. In cases involving unlawful discrimination or sexual harassment, one can see how a confidential process benefits the employer at the expense not only of the individual employee bringing the complaint, but potentially many other employees as well.
  • Unequal power. Litigation tends to balance the inherently unequal employer-employee relationship, by giving both sides equal rights before the law. Private arbitration doesn’t always meet the same standard. Some arbitrators may have an incentive to favor employers, because an employer will continue to use an arbitrator that it thinks will take a more favorable view of the employer’s side. This problem has been well documented.
Together these problems can frustrate an employee’s efforts to enforce important legal rights. Because arbitration can be binding and unappealable, it is especially important for employees to seek good legal advice.

GGRM is a Las Vegas law firm

The attorneys at the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez are proud to serve working people in the Las Vegas area. If you are in a dispute with your employer and have questions about how a mandatory-arbitration clause affects your rights, we would be happy to talk to you about your options. For a free attorney consultation call us today at 702-388-4476 or ask us to reach out to you through our contact page.