5 ms·

> And if people don't like the results of arbitration, there's still the option of claiming impartial arbitration and filing a lawsuit anyway. This is not accu

> And if people don't like the results of arbitration, there's still the option of claiming impartial arbitration and filing a lawsuit anyway. This is not accurate. Almost every mandatory binding arbitration clause of substance includes wording that the arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be appealed. Also, the question of whether the arbitrator's ruling was fair and impartial--did you mean claiming "partial," or biased, arbitration?--is, much like the question of jurisdiction or ability to arbitrate, left to the arbitrator to decide under those same terms.

barry-cotter 7y ago
This can’t be true or arbitrators would be able to openly ignore the plaintiff’s testimony, say so in writing in their judgment and condemn the plaintiff to death for being a minute late to their job at WalMart. The law does not work like that because judges don’t work like that. There are rights you can’t sign away. No matter what the contract says non competes are not valid in California. You can’t agree to be someone’s slave if you can’t pay your debts and have the court enforce that.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > This can’t be true or arbitrators would be able to openly ignore the plaintiff’s testimony, say so in writing in their judgment and condemn the plaintiff to death for being a minute late to their job at WalMart. Obviously there are limits, but if the arbitrators aren't open and blatant about their bias, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any remedy if you were wronged by a biased arbitrator. The point of arbitration isn't to allow companies to engage illegal criminal conduct like slavery, it's to make them practically immune from civil court proceedings.