A Better Solution to Moral Hazard in Employment Arbitration: It is Time to Ban Predispute Binding Arbitration Clauses

15 Pages Posted: 3 Mar 2010

See all articles by Lisa Blomgren Amsler (formerly Bingham)

Lisa Blomgren Amsler (formerly Bingham)

Indiana University Bloomington - Paul H. O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs; University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

David H. Good

Indiana University Bloomington - School of Public & Environmental Affairs (SPEA)

Date Written: March 1, 2009

Abstract

Published in new online journal: Minnesota Law Review Headnotes. Mandatory arbitration is a neologism that describes the capacity of an economically stronger repeat player to impose an adhesive binding arbitration clause on the weaker, usually one-shot, player. Such agreements appear frequently as a condition of some economic relationship, most problematically employment, consumer purchases, or health care. Employers and businesses adopt adhesive arbitration clauses as a means to manage the risk of litigation and perceived “runaway” jury awards. Professor Michael LeRoy, together with his colleague Professor Peter Feuille, has made a series of important empirical and substantive contributions to the dialogue and controversy. In his recent article appearing in the Minnesota Law Review, Professor LeRoy outlines the debate over mandatory arbitration and proposes another way to view the developing and divided case law: that courts create conditions of moral hazard by vacating arbitration awards that employees win. We argue that the data do not support Professor LeRoy’s first recommendation, and that enforcing the narrow FAA review standards will not address the many abuses presented by mandatory arbitration. We conclude that the FAA, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it lately, is the problem and not the solution. The solution is legislation to ban predispute arbitration agreements for employment, health care, and consumer disputes.

Keywords: Mandatory Arbitration, Moral Hazard

Suggested Citation

Amsler, Lisa Blomgren and Good, David Henning, A Better Solution to Moral Hazard in Employment Arbitration: It is Time to Ban Predispute Binding Arbitration Clauses (March 1, 2009). Minnesota Law Review Headnotes, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 1-14, 2009, Indiana University, Bloomington School of Public & Environmental Affairs Research Paper No. 2010-03-01, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1562250

Lisa Blomgren Amsler (Contact Author)

Indiana University Bloomington - Paul H. O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs ( email )

1315 East Tenth Street
Rm. 333
Bloomington, IN 47405
United States
812-855-1465 (Phone)
812-855-7802 (Fax)

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law ( email )

4505 South Maryland Parkway
Box 451003
Las Vegas, NV 89154
United States

David Henning Good

Indiana University Bloomington - School of Public & Environmental Affairs (SPEA) ( email )

1315 East Tenth Street
Bloomington, IN 47405
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
107
Abstract Views
1,105
Rank
457,076
PlumX Metrics