Arbitrating Disputes, Denying Justice

Ecija, Norman Joye A.

This article talks about force arbitration that is being employed by American corporations. These
corporations have created a system for handling disputes that greatly benefits them. However, this
scheme violates their consumers’ right of opportunity to be heard or their day in court. Corporations
control the arbitration process, including the selection of arbitrator and the rules of evidence. Because
of this, the fairness of the proceedings are in issue and most of the time, it brings prejudice to people.

The forced-arbitration clauses bar the aggrieved parties from pursuing their claims as a group in a class
action which is the only practical way for individuals to challenge corporations. Just like in the article
“Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking Up Deck of Justice”, this also portrays the harsh practice of
corporations in using arbitration. In addition to this, this practice was supported by court decisions in
2011 and 2013. These decisions supported the usage of forced-arbitration clause. In my opinion,
there’s nothing wrong with these decisions. In legal sense, force arbitrations are valid. They are in the
form of a contract. Hence, for as long as they consented to this force arbitration, it can be enforced.

People who were blocked from going to court as a group usually dropped their claims entirely, in part
because class actions are often the only affordable way to file lawsuits. The shift away from the civil
justice system has gone beyond disputes about money. Nursing homes, obstetrics practices and private
schools use forced-arbitration clauses to shield themselves from being taken to court over alleged
discrimination, abuse, fraud, hate crimes, medical malpractice and wrongful deaths. This, incidents are
the result of abuse of the force arbitration. More and more companies are apparently using this tactic as
method to cover up fraud and wrongdoings. It is also used to cover mistakes and negligence. As more
companies use it, its use becomes unethical. Its effect to customers are becoming more prejudicial but
authorities do not have any measure to stop this scheme.

For most part, Congress has looked the other way. Federal regulators are starting to fight back.
Reversing the broader trend of forced arbitration, however, will require public outcry loud and long
enough to stir the Congress to action. Many people did not realize that their right to sue had been lost
until they needed it. This is happening and it should be stopped. At present, authorities are employing
some precautions and ways to prevent this malpractice. One of our rights is the right to sue but it is
being hindered by arbitration. Although it is true that arbitration hinders this right, I believe that
arbitration is just a part and parcel of our right to sue. One of the forms to sue is arbitration. Although
our complaints are not formally given to the court, arbitration, however, is also one of those ways to act
on our claims. Hence, the only problem we face is the strict and right implementation of arbitration.
Arbitration is not wrong as long as it is conducted in accordance with law.