Arbitration

  • June 20, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Paul Bland, Senior Attorney, Public Justice. This piece is cross-posted at Public Justice’s blog.

    So, today, in American Express v. Italian Colors, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a take-it-or-leave-it arbitration clause could be used to prevent small businesses from actually pursuing their claims for abuse of monopoly power under the antitrust laws. Essentially, the Court said today that their favorite statute in the entire code is the Federal Arbitration Act, and it can be used to wipe away nearly any other statute.

    As Justice Kagan said in a bang-on, accurate and clear-sighted dissent, this is a "BETRAYAL" (strong word, eh?) of the Court's prior arbitration decisions. You see, until now, the Supreme Court has said that courts should only enforce arbitration clauses where a party could "effectively vindicate its statutory rights." Today, in a sleight of hand, the five conservative justices said that this means that arbitration clauses should be enforced even when they make it impossible for parties to actually vindicate their statutory rights, so long as they have a theoretical "right" to pursue that remedy.

    The plaintiffs in this case, restaurants and other small merchants, claim that American Express uses its monopoly power over its charge card to force them to accept American Express's credit cards and pay higher rates than they would for other credit cards. This is called a "tying arrangement" under the antitrust laws -- American Express is alleged to be using its monopoly power over one product to jack up the price of another product to higher rates than it could charge in a competitive market.

  • June 20, 2013
    Guest Post

    by John Vail, Vice President and Senior Litigation Counsel, Center for Constitutional Litigation

    In a decision one justice called a “betrayal of our precedents,” the Supreme Court today ruled that corporations can use arbitration clauses to insulate themselves from liability.  

    The decision culminates a thirty year judicial effort by the Court to turn an innocuous 1920s statute, the Federal Arbitration Act, into a weapon used to thwart enforcement of rights by consumers, employees, and small businesses. 

    In American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, a restaurant filed a class action complaining that American Express had used monopoly power to force merchants to accept credit cards at rates approximately 30 percent higher than the fees for competing credit cards, in violation of antitrust statutes.  American Express moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in its agreement with the restaurant that provided, in part, “[t]here shall be no right or authority for any Claims to be arbitrated on a class action basis.”

    The restaurant -- invoking a line of Supreme Court cases that held open the possibility courts could invalidate arbitration clauses that effectively precluded vindication of federal statutory rights -- opposed arbitration.  It demonstrated that costs of litigating an individual claim were “’at least several hundred thousand dol­lars, and might exceed $1 million,’ while the maximum recovery for an individual plaintiff would be $12,850, or $38,549 when trebled,” and argued that preclusion class resolution effectively precluded it from vindicating its claim. 

    The Second Circuit agreed, having held that “the only economically feasible means for . . . enforcing [respondents’] statutory rights is via a class action.” The Supreme Court reversed.

    The Court, with Justice Scalia writing for a five person majority, first found nothing specific in the antitrust laws  - no “congressional command “ - requiring the Court  to reject the waiver of class arbitration.“The antitrust laws do not ‘evinc[e] an intention to pre­clude a waiver’ of class-action procedure.”

    The Court also found no “entitlement to class proceedings for the vindication of statutory rights” flowing from congressional approval of Rule 23, noting that in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion it already had rejected the argument that “federal law secures a nonwaivable opportunity to vindicate federal policies by satisfying the procedural strictures of Rule 23 or invoking some other informal class mechanism in arbitration.”

  • June 20, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    During her featured remarks at the 2013 ACS National Convention, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ripped the federal bench, and the Supreme Court in particular, for a pro-corporate trend. Today the high court issued an opinion in American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant that buttresses Warren’s sharp critique.

    In the American Express case, the Court’s right-wing justices found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) blocks courts from invalidating contractual waivers of class arbitration, another blow to individuals hoping to band together to hold corporations accountable for malfeasance. A group of merchants who accept American Express cards had lodged a class action against the financial giant arguing that its rate on accepting American Express cards violated federal antitrust laws. The high court led by Justice Antonin Scalia, however, essentially held that a clause in the American Express agreement barring class action arbitration trumped antitrust laws.

    Scalia maintained that the FAA was enacted by Congress as a “response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration” and that its text “reflects the overarching principle that arbitration is a matter of contract. There is no ‘contrary congressional command’ that “requires us to reject the waiver of class arbitration here,” Scalia wrote.

    Scalia notes the merchants argued that forcing them to litigate individually would prove too costly, but concluded “the antitrust laws do not guarantee an affordable path to the vindication of every claim.” Later in the opinion, Scalia writes, “But the fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy.”

    As Media Matters’ Senior Counsel & Director of its Courts Matter project Lara Schwartz noted, “In other words, Scalia essentially was saying it’s OK if the rules make it impossible to win as long as they don’t make it impossible to play.

    Justice Elena Kagan lodged a dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself in this case). Kagan wrote, that the “owner of a small restaurant (Italian Colors) thinks that American Express (Amex) has used its monopoly power to force merchants to accept a form contract violating the antitrust laws.” But that same agreement with Amex barred the restaurateur from bringing the claim.

    “And here is the nutshell version of today’s opinion, admirably flaunted rather than camouflaged: Too darn bad.”

  • March 12, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    While President Obama has advanced some eloquent calls for expanding equality, his administration must take more action to ensure equality in the workforce, according to a new ACS Issue Brief.

    Landmark measures such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and President Lyndon Johnson’s executive order banning federal contractors from employment discrimination have been undermined by federal judges far too eager to protect the rights of employers, write Ellen Eardley and Cyrus Mehri in “Defending Twentieth Century Equal Employment Reforms in the Twenty-First Century.” 

    Citing Simon Lazarus, an attorney with the Constitutional Accountability Center, Eardley and Mehri write that lower federal court judges “have been ‘aggressively activist in narrowing, undermining, and effectively nullifying an array of progressive statutes,’ including statutes involving civil rights and affirmative action.” Eardley and Mehri, attorneys with Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, also note that former federal court judge Nancy Gertner has “recently declared that ‘changes in substantive discrimination law since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [are] tantamount to a virtual repeal.’”

    The authors also cite a study from the Harvard Law & Policy Review, the official journal of ACS, which reveals data showing that from 1979 through 2007 judges have increasingly sided with employers in employment discrimination cases and that the rare victories for workers are frequently invalidated at the appellate level. The study by Stewart J. Schwab and Kevin Clermont “found that the anti-plaintiff effect on appeal particularly disturbing because employment discrimination cases are fact-intensive and often turn on the credibility of witnesses.”

    And it’s not just the lower courts that have made it difficult for workers to challenge employer malfeasance, the authors add, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued opinions making it tougher to bring class actions claims and providing federal courts with greater power to quickly dismiss workers’ employment discrimination cases.

    “The Draconian view of Title VII, distortion of the basic principles of civil procedure, and the new hurdles to class certification adopted by the federal judiciary make it difficult for employees to vindicate their rights,” Eardley and Mehri write.

  • March 11, 2013

    by E. Sebastian Arduengo

    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or FINRA recently found that Charles Schwab, violated FINRA consumer protection rules by including provisions in customer agreements where customers waived their right to assert claims through the class action mechanism. The punishment for trying to structure a customer agreement that effectively allows Schwab to cheat their customers without fear of repercussion? A slap on the wrist.

    FINRA's weak action was a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in AT&T v. Concepcion. The Court held that arbitration agreements that waived a party’s ability to bring a class action must be enforced, even if they were in “take it or leave it” contracts of adhesion, where the consumer had no choice but to agree if they wanted cell phone service. At the time, The New York Times noted “the decision … appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court. All they need do … is use standard-form contracts that require two things: that disputes be raised only through the informal mechanism of arbitration and that claims be brought one by one.”  

    This brings us back to the FINRA decision, which is a perfect application of the litigation strategy outlined by The Times, and shows why Concepcion was such a terrific decision for corporate America (not so much for the rest of us). In direct response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Concepcion , Schwab put new waiver provisions in their 2011 customer agreements, which covered close to seven million customers. The waivers that they put into the 2011 customer agreements were worded such that any customer claim against Schwab had to be arbitrated “solely on an individual, case-by-case basis.”