We do not believe that the settlement can explain the difference, as both court proceedings and arbitration proceedings are resolved before the hearing or hearing in similar proportions. A large study by Nielsen et al. found a billing rate of 58 percent in the Federal Court of Employment Discrimination Litigation,50 during recent research on mandatory arbitration found a billing rate of 63 percent on all employment cases in this forum.51 It may be that there are some differences in the cases to be settled , but overall, it does not appear that differences in the likelihood of comparison to the court may explain the mandatory arbitration outcome gap process. What can be done to reverse these trends? Arbitration providers make voluntary efforts to ensure that arbitration procedures provide appropriate protection for impartial procedures and decision makers. However, while making voluntary efforts by arbitration service providers and companies to improve formal procedures in their arbitration procedures are desirable, they do not address the fundamental problem that the current arbitration law allows the company to decide what type of arbitration to impose on its employees or customers. Voluntary measures cannot prevent companies that want to protect their interests – at the expense of employees and customers – from introducing provisions such as the waiver of class actions and the payment clauses of the losers, which prevent access to justice. Nor can they adequately address the bias of repetitive players. As noted above, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau conducted a study on mandatory arbitration procedures in the consumer financial sector, as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In addition to commissioning this study, Dodd-Frank also gives the CFPB the power to limit or prohibit mandatory arbitration procedures in consumer financial contracts. The GFPB examines whether class appeals in mandatory arbitration agreements are prohibited on the basis of the results of its study. If it prohibits mandatory arbitration, it would eliminate the practice in the consumer and finance industry and would have a significant impact on credit card contracts and other consumer debt contracts. Although arbitral awards are characteristic of obtaining damages against a party, courts in many jurisdictions have a number of appeals that may be part of the award. These include: first, in the 1980s, the Supreme Court adopted a presumption in favour of an arbitration procedure that should be used to adjudicate FAA cases.
He decided at Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), that when it comes to a particular dispute in an arbitration clause, the courts must resolve any doubts in favour of arbitration. Such a presumption has favoured the “federal liberal policy that favours arbitration agreements, regardless of the state`s substantive or contrary policy.” This statement of federal policy served as an integral part of arbitration law and justified the extraordinary extension of the FAA that followed. 36. Although there is no public registry listing all companies that require mandatory mediation of their employees, the disclosure statements that arbitration providers are required to publish contain the names of the companies involved.