Texas Watch—Consumer Protection. Corporate Accountability. Citizen Advocacy.

Continuing a strong pro-arbitration bent, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday made it more difficult for consumers and employees to challenge the fairness of arbitration agreements in court.

In Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson, the justices divided, 5-4, in holding that an arbitrator, not a district court, will decide whether an arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable if the agreement explicitly delegates that issue to the arbitrator and the consumer or employee has failed to challenge the specific delegation clause.

“It greatly limits the ability of consumers and employees to challenge the fairness of arbitration agreements,” said Deepak Gupta of Public Citizen Litigation Group, co-counsel to Antonio Jackson, along with Public Justice and Ian Silverberg of Hardy & Associates in Reno, Nev., who argued the case.

“The kind of delegation clause at issue here is not a common clause, but we can expect those clauses to become much more common,” he said, adding, “The decision is very formalistic, imposing a kind of pleading requirement. If a consumer’s lawyer knows enough to challenge a specific part of the arbitration agreement, they can go to court.”

Read More: National Law Journal

Antonio Jackson worked at Rent-A-Center in Nevada. The store rents out appliances and electronics and also—in the event of a contentious employment dispute—quality judges.

In 2004, when Jackson signed his employment contract, he agreed that disputes arising from his employment would go to arbitration. Specifically, his contract said, “The Arbitrator, and not any federal, state or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement.” And so, in 2007, when Jackson sued Rent-A-Center for racial discrimination and retaliation in federal district court, his former employer tried to dismiss the case, arguing that the arbitration agreement meant that only an arbitrator could determine whether the agreement was enforceable. (More legalese in the contract: The arbitration authority extended to “any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.”)

Jackson’s claim here is that the arbitration agreement he signed is unconscionable—so one-sided in favor of the employer that it cannot be enforced. But first, he has to argue to the Supreme Court today that it is for a judge, not an arbitrator, to rule on that question. Just to be clear, or as clear as you can be when fighting your way through 59 minutes of warm mud, the issue today isn’t whether Jackson’s employment contract is unconscionable, but whether an arbitrator gets to arbitrate that question or a judge gets to judge it.

Read More: Slate.com

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram published a guest column by Texas Watch Executive Director Alex Winslow discussing the Toyota safety debacle and how the comapny should have to face an impartial judge and citizen jury – not an underfunded and over-lobbied government bureaucracy.  Check it out. Read More »

In a legal battle that has been going on for more than a decade, homeowners Bob and Jane Cull finally prevailed in court yesterday over mega-builder and political moneyman Bob Perry.  The jury’s decision sends a clear message that the influence of PAC contributions and high-dollar lobbyists have not yet crept into the jury box.  Politicians and activist judges should think twice before twisting the law at the behest of corporate lobbyists who abuse the public’s trust. Read More »

Congress is expected to pass legislation by Christmas that would ban defense contractors from forcing employees into arbitration in discrimination and sexual assault lawsuits on contracts of more than $1 million. The bill stems from the alleged rape of former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones by three coworkers in 2005 while she was in Iraq. The no-arbitration clause will have some minor exceptions, such as allowing arbitration if “it is necessary to avoid harm to national security interests of the United States.”

As the deadline to file legislation comes to a close, it is clear that many lawmakers recognize the need to strengthen protections for Texas families, patients, homeowners, drivers, and small business owners. After several years of dominance by the insurance industry and their special interest lobbyists, lawmakers have filed a number of bills this session that if passed will improve the marketplace for everyday Texans. Read More »