3 ms·

"e: (1) the employee win rate amongst the cases was 21.4%, which is lower than employee win rates reported in employment litigation trials; (2) in cases won by

"e: (1) the employee win rate amongst the cases was 21.4%, which is lower than employee win rates reported in employment litigation trials; (2) in cases won by employees, the median award amount was $36,500 and the mean was $109,858, both of which are substantially lower than award amounts reported in employment litigation; " These key findings are of course, completely irrelevant to whether this is the right outcome. IE they are not good or bad in and of themselves. " (6) the mean amount claimed was $844,814 and 75 percent of all claims were greater than $36,000." The likelihood that this amount claimed is sane seems low when viewed over a group of 1200 people, and particular, people who pretty much all make < 100k a year. "The results also indicate the existence of a significant repeat employer-arbitrator pairing effect in which employees on average have lower win rates and receive smaller damage awards where the same arbitrator is involved in more than one case with the same employer, a finding supporting some of the fairness criticisms directed at mandatory employment arbitration" The conclusion aout fairness does not follow from these facts of course, in any way. It may be the arbitrator now has a better perspective on the way various folks may be trying to game the system or whatever else. You will also find very similar pairings in state vs federal venue win rates for employees and class action lawsuits. Yet i don't see anyone here screaming that this is unfair

jellicle 11y ago
So given the evidence that arbitrators are substantially more biased towards corporations than regular courts are, your argument is that it's actually the courts that are biased in favor of individuals and the arbitrators are actually perfectly fair and impartial. I suppose that isn't ruled out by the evidence at hand. But isn't it more likely that regular courts, with all their rules about conflict of interest and judges that aren't paid their salary by one side of the dispute are a little more likely to be the fairer ones?
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "But isn't it more likely that regular courts, with all their rules about conflict of interest and judges that aren't paid their salary by one side of the dispute are a little more likely to be the fairer ones?" In my experience, no ;-) Also, they are paid by one side of the dispute - you pay judges salaries ;-) In a lot of states, they are directly elected, too.

jellicle 11y ago

So given the evidence that arbitrators are substantially more biased towards corporations than regular courts are, your argument is that it's actually the courts that are biased in favor of individuals and the arbitrators are actually perfectly fair and impartial. I suppose that isn't ruled out by the evidence at hand. But isn't it more likely that regular courts, with all their rules about conflict of interest and judges that aren't paid their salary by one side of the dispute are a little more likely to be the fairer ones?

DannyBee 11y ago
"But isn't it more likely that regular courts, with all their rules about conflict of interest and judges that aren't paid their salary by one side of the dispute are a little more likely to be the fairer ones?" In my experience, no ;-) Also, they are paid by one side of the dispute - you pay judges salaries ;-) In a lot of states, they are directly elected, too.