2 ms·

>"Experienced plaintiffs' attorneys have estimated that only about 5% of the individuals with an employment claim who seek help from the private bar are able to

by nickff 11y ago

>"Experienced plaintiffs' attorneys have estimated that only about 5% of the individuals with an employment claim who seek help from the private bar are able to obtain counsel." >"One study concluded that litigation is not a plausible option for employees below around the $60,000 income level, but arbitration is a realistic alternative" >" The American Arbitration Association in one study found a winning rate of 63% for arbitral claimants. 41 In a much-criticized system operated by the securities industry, employees still prevailed 55% of the time, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office." By contrast, plaintiffs' success rates in separate surveys of federal court and EEOC trials were only 14.9% and 16.8%, respectively." Did you read any of the paper at all?

Dr_tldr 11y ago
...uh, still comparing apples to oranges, I see, and the American Arbitration Association hasn't published their full dataset, but according to their internal study that contradicts external studies, it's great? Here's a paper that digs into this a bit more: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2018&context=articles http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... So if people don't have access to legal representation below a certain income level, the solution is not to increase accessibility to courts or to allow them to represent themselves in court, but instead to set up binding arbitration where they also have no representation? Do you feel that in abstraction, a neutral observer would reach that conclusion?