by Kristi Dunn
While the court litigation process has successfully resolved countless cases for decades, the reality is that it can cost an arm and a leg to do so. This has prompted disputing parties here in Middle Tennessee to instead turn to arbitration to assist them in working out reasonable agreements. This system has benefited all parties, saving countless workers and businesses both time and money.
Even though this has arguably proven to financially benefit our communities, it has prevented greedy trial lawyers from being able to charge outlandish legal fees. To address this, the trial bar has teamed up with some members of Congress to put forward the Protecting Older Americans Act. This misleadingly titled bill aims to forbid the use of arbitration for employees filing age related claims. It would then leave them with no other real alternative but to file with the court systems, where trial lawyers are waiting to pounce and charge them exorbitant legal costs for months on end.
Instead of trying to stop a system that works, we must fight to protect it. This couldn’t be more true for claimants that file cases through arbitration, who according to years of study and research, win $10,000 more in settlement money compared to cases filed under the court system. This massive discrepancy in settlement earnings can be life changing for countless families and communities, who can use the money on food, transportation costs, and other household expenses they face on a daily basis.
It is also clear that businesses filing through arbitration are better off financially. This system has much lower legal costs compared to court litigation, which can quickly charge thousands of dollars over a short period of time. Thanks to arbitration, however, businesses are instead able to retain these funds and use them towards expanding their workforce and developing new goods. All of this helps contribute to a stronger economy.
There are a number of regulations in place to ensure disputing parties that arbitration remains a fair and open process for all. A number of key arbitral forums, including the American Arbitration Association, have established strict guidelines that require arbitrators to disclose any conflicts of interests and remain neutral in all cases. In addition, court orders and state laws have separately mandated that arbitration outcomes must be made available to the public to maintain transparency.
Given all this, we must push back against efforts by Congress and the trial bar to enact the Protecting Older Americans Act into law. The bill’s language to forbid the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in age discrimination cases would all but end arbitration, as disputing parties will no longer be able to agree on legal terms prior to any future conflict that may occur. Moreover, these parties are unlikely to reach any such agreements during a conflict.
It is critical that we maintain arbitration as a legal option that claimants and defendants can both freely use. Doing so has saved both sides thousands of dollars and from having to go through painful court litigation that can drag on for months. Our state’s federal leaders in Congress must oppose the Protecting Older Americans Act and help protect this key legal tool.
– – –
Kristi Dunn is a conservative activist in Wilson County.
As a retired claims attorney for an insurance company, I can tell you that both defense and plaintiff lawyers almost universally abhor AAA arbitration. It is slow, ponderous, unresponsive, and the ability to obtain relevant discovery evidence is severely reduced. From the carrier’s perspective, an insurance company of course wants a case resolved as cheaply as possible, but AAA arbitration is simply not the way to do it.