Tagged: fairness

“Arbitration proved to be devastating to Debbie Brenner of Peoria, Ariz., who believes she did not get a fair shake in her fraud case against a for-profit school chain that nearly left her bankrupt. In a rambling decision against Ms. Brenner that ran to 313 pages, the arbitrator mused on singing lessons, Jell-O and Botox. ‘It was a kangaroo court,’ Ms. Brenner said. ‘I can’t believe this is America.'”

Source: Michael Corkery and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. “In Arbitration, A ‘Privatization Of The Justice System.'” New York Times. November 1, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbitration-a-privatization-of-the-justice-system.html.

“Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment.”

Source: Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938).

“In the American judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge. Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution. The injuries inflicted may be severe and enduring. Yet the recent expansion of a judge-made exception to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1871, chief vehicle for redress of civil rights violations, has rendered state judges immune from suit even for the most bizarre, corrupt, or abusive of judicial acts. In the last decade this ‘doctrine of judicial immunity’ has led to a disturbing series of legal precedents that effectively deny citizens any redress for injuries, embarrassment, and unjust imprisonment caused by errant judges.”

Source: Robert Craig Waters. Judicial Immunity v. Due Process: When Should A Judge Be Subject To Suit? Cato Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2 pg. 461 (Fall 1987).

“Unlike Chief Justice [John G.] Roberts, Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor’s way to stop racism-based discrimination expressly points to and is grounded in the ways that racism has and does matter, and emphasizes the real and harmful effects of this form of discrimination on the nation’s racial minorities. Connected to and cognizant of history and the various ways in which race has been used to classify, marginalize, and subordinate racial minorities, Justice Sotomayor’s equal protection analysis deems constitutionally relevant, not just race as color or phenotype, but the lived experiences of those subjected to racism-based discrimination and mistreatment. As facts and context matter, governmental consideration of race used to segregate and exclude is not the same as governmental race-conscious measures used to integrate and include. On that view, the effects of centuries of racism-based discrimination and the current manifestations thereof cannot be meaningfully addressed by merely prohibiting racial classifications.”

Very well written!

Source: Ronald Turner. “The Way To Stop Discrimination On the Basis of Race…” Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties. pg. 47. January 2015.

“[Chief Justice John] Roberts’s ‘colorblindness’ bears only a superficial resemblance to the concept as understood by past champions of equal rights, since as applied by the conservative majority on the court the approach has had dire consequences for racial minorities. Since Roberts became chief justice, the high court has struck down school desegregation plans, narrowed affirmative action, crippled the Voting Rights Act, limited the circumstances under which Americans can sue for racial discrimination, and enabled the denial of health insurance to millions of financially struggling people of color. Though the opportunity has not yet presented itself, the conservative movement from which Roberts sprung would see the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 destroyed as well.”

With regards to civil rights related cases, especially those involving the rights of African Americans, it is clear that our judicial system is completely rigged and set up in a way that would ensure that many of the gains made during the civil rights movement, would be eviscerated over time while racism continues to thrive. Smdh.

Source: Adam Serwer. “Sonia Sotomayor: Court’s Right Wing ‘Out Of Touch With Reality.’” msnbc. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sonia-sotomayor-slams-supreme-court-right-wing-race-matters.

watch Leonard Rowe’s interview with Atlanta’s WSB-TV about his upcoming case[s].

The interview is scheduled to air at 5:45 EST and can be viewed online here: http://www.wsbtv.com/.

“We’re not asking for any more, but we’re not asking for any less. We’re just asking for what’s fair. When you hear my sisters Gwyneth Paltrow and Patricia Arquette, who happen to be white women, and they say, ‘Can we have wage equality in Hollywood?’ Well, if there are white women saying that, what do you think we’re getting? — Mo’Nique

Source: Anita Bennett. “Mo’Nique Says Hollywood Treated Her Like She ‘Just Got Off the Greyhound Bus’ After Oscar Win.” The Wrap. March 3, 2015. http://www.thewrap.com/monique-says-hollywood-treated-her-like-i-just-got-off-the-greyhound-bus-after-oscar-win/.

in determining the issue of arbitrability, can an arbitrator be impartial if s/he serves on the Board of Directors of an organization that is opposed to the Arbitration Fairness Act?

“Following Rent-A-Center[, West v. Jackson], it seems certain that all challenges to the fairness of mandatory arbitration clause terms will be decided not by courts, but by arbitrators. Arbitrators themselves will decide whether the arbitration process is flawed. After Rent-A-Center, employers may design their own arbitration scheme, confident that questions regarding the fairness of the scheme will not be heard by the courts but by the arbitrators. The law will now provide little oversight on employers in their use of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements.”

Source: Griffin Toronjo Pivateau, Private Resolution of Public Disputes: Employment, Arbitration, and the Statutory Cause of Action. 32 Pace Law Review 114, 115. 2012.

“Arbitration has many benefits, but cannot survive a fairness analysis unless both parties have the ability to voluntarily, knowingly, and without pressure or coercion, choose to arbitrate rather than litigate claims. While litigation is not perfect, it has the benefit of an appellate process and reviewability, judges that are well versed in the law, and the opportunity for trial by a jury of one’s peers.”

Source: Janna Giesbrecht-McKee, The Fairness Problem: Mandatory Arbitration in Employment Contracts. 50 Williamette Law Review 259, 276, 2014.