Enforcement Of “Customized” Arbitration Agreements

Oct 2 2018

One benefit of arbitration is that parties of equal bargaining power can provide for a method of settling disputes which is alternative to the court system.  A negotiated arbitration agreement, which allows parties to resolve disputes quickly and at reduced cost, can dispense with many procedures which apply in court.  An expedited, more informal process can allow businesses who have commercial disputes to continue doing business together, or can allow construction projects to proceed while specific questions are being resolved.  In general, the theory is that a relationship can be preserved if the dispute resolution process is sensible for both parties.  Equal negotiating power, in general, insures an outcome which is sensible, as neither party can impose unreasonable terms or conditions on the other.

Arbitration in the employment and consumer sectors of our economy, however, is different.  Most employees (with the exception of highly-compensated executives) do not have much power to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment.  Consumers buying products have no negotiating power.  The theory in these areas is that employees and consumers can “vote with their feet” by refusing to accept the job or refusing to buy the product.

In the real world, however, consumers won’t find out about an “arbitration agreement” until they have opened the box and (perhaps) read the manual enclosed in it.  Since most consumers believe that the product is going to work, it is the rare one indeed that will return it just to protest an arbitration provision.

In the real world, however, the employee who has successfully interviewed for an interesting job may have been the one who was selected over 100 other applicants, in a tough job market.  That employee also believes that the future will be fine at the workplace.  Almost no one would quit a job, before it even starts, in protest that arbitration is the method the new employer has chosen to resolve disputes, which may never arise.

Because the “vote with your feet” concept is unrealistic in these venues, manufacturers and employers have, in some instances, tried to “customize” the arbitration process to their benefit only.  One method which has had mixed results is to shorten the statute of limitations.

Ten or fifteen years ago, a few employers successfully inserted six-month limitations periods in arbitration agreements.  In a race discrimination case brought in 1992 under Section 1981 in the 7th Circuit, for example, the court upheld a six-month statute of limitations.  At that time, however, it was not settled that the section 1981 statute of limitations was four years, so there was a reasonable argument that six months approximated the most analogous state limitations period.  In general, many courts in those years saw the issue as whether the shorter statute of limitations was unreasonable or oppressive, giving undue advantage to one party.

Not content with shortening a limitations period to six months, more recently some companies have provided that all claims must be made within as short a time period as 30 days.  These attempts have not succeeded.  In particular, courts have been offended that a private employer has sought to modify statutory limitations periods which are part and parcel of public policies against discrimination or other employee-protective statutes.  Since 2000, various attempts to shorten the statute of limitations have failed, whether the shortened period was 30 days, 90 days, six months or even one year.

Of course, one can search forever for the case in which a company has allowed a longer statute of limitations for claims.  To my knowledge, no such case exists.  Fooling with the statute of limitations is always one-sided, and is always meant to benefit the drafter.  A statute of limitations is part and parcel of a right itself.  “Customizing” it should always be unconscionable, and never enforceable, when the contract is of the “take it or leave it” variety.

Share this Post

Arbitration

About the Author

Joseph D. Garrison

Joseph D. Garrison

Since founding Garrison, Levin-Epstein in 1977, Joe Garrison has become the leading employment lawyer in Connecticut and one of the most prominent employee rights advocates in the United States. Learn More

You deserve justice. We are here to fight for you.

Let Us Review Your Case

We will respond to your message promptly. Although we will keep your message strictly confidential, please note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Client Experiences

During a very difficult employment situation, I was referred to Joe Garrison. Recognizing the volatile and time sensitive nature of my employment situation, Mr. Garrison met with me immediately (on the weekend no less). He listened to the details of my case, was able to think through possible creative solutions to offer the employer, and was responsive to my myriad of questions. He understood my concerns about litigation versus settlement, and he worked to find the best resolution possible. I am grateful to have had his support at a very difficult time. —J.C., New Haven, CT

Ethan Levin-Epstein represented me during a most painful and challenging crisis in my personal and professional life. Seeing me within 24 hours of being referred, his support and advocacy, wisdom and clarity not only resulted in a favorable negotiated outcome for me and for my family, but gave me peace of mind and the courage to recover. I am very grateful to have met Ethan and his team and would refer anyone in need to this haven. — C.L., Guilford, CT

You will never meet a more knowledgeable and compassionate professional than Steve Fitzgerald. My employment situation was very complex, and Attorney Fitzgerald kept me focused while remaining extremely adept and “thinking on his feet.” Should the need present itself again, I would never seek anyone else’s counsel regarding employment issues. I cannot recommend him highly enough. — J.R., New Haven, CT

Nina Pirrotti provided outstanding legal advice and was trustworthy, dependable, and responsive. From the start, I was confident that her knowledge and experience would obtain favorable results. On a more personal note, I enjoyed working with her and her staff and felt I was included in every part of the process. The dedication, concern, and interest in me as a client was greatly appreciated, and Nina has earned my highest recommendation. — J.H., Monroe, CT

I recently found myself in need of a lawyer in handling a dispute with my former employer. I was fortunate to retain Josh Goodbaum as my legal counsel. His legal skills knowledge and professionalism shone through in every step of the process resulting in a very positive result. I highly recommend Josh if you find yourself in need of legal counsel. — S.R., Guilford, CT

When I go to a lawyer for advice, I am usually anxious, particularly the first meeting. Amanda DeMatteis was clear in describing my options and immediately set me at ease. Realistic assessment is important, and Amanda was clear as to how to set up the case and the direction she felt we should go. I had total confidence in her abilities and knew I was being well represented against a large corporation. More importantly, we were successful! —N.M., Haddam, CT

Proven Results & Personalized Attention When You Need It Most

American Law Institute Super Lawyers American College of Trial Lawyers Best Lawyers The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers
Back to Top