Tagged: law article

“Individual employment arbitration exemplifies the decline of the civil jury. Companies require individuals to submit employment disputes to private judges. The Supreme Court’s seminal decision, Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., signals broad approval of this workplace dispute resolution method. The problem is that employees are pressured to waive access to a judicial forum, including a jury. A few years after Gilmer, millions of employees are now required to arbitrate. Firms embrace arbitration to lower dispute costs. But that is beginning to change as employers question its value. Key rulings make trials less expensive, while arbitrations are more costly. Remarkably, some employers are discarding arbitration to return to court, but with a condition: employees must waive access to a jury and agree to a bench trial.”

Source: Michael H. LeRoy. “Jury Revival or Jury Reviled? When Employers Are Compelled To Waive Jury Trials.” U. Pa. Journal of Labor and Employment Law. pg. 768-769. 2005.

“Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of justice…Through a series of case studies, it shows that systemic lying emerges as a saving mechanism that mediates between culture and law. Rather than allow the law to take its course and deliver what would be perceived as unjust outcomes, participants lie and preserve the facade of a system that delivers results consonant with popular moral intuitions. Systemic lying is both persistent and powerful because it achieves a type of licitness that individual lies or underground deception lack. At the same time, it poses a unique threat to the legitimacy of the system by signifying that truth is not paramount in the courtroom.”

Source: Julia Simon-Kerr. Systemic Lying. pg. 1. September 2014.