Arbitration clauses, which are often buried in the small print of standard-form contracts, compel employees and customers to waive their legal recourse against a firm. The majority of forced arbitration contracts also include class action waiver clauses that prohibit individuals from filing or joining class action lawsuits against businesses. Instead, those who are subject to compelled arbitration agreements must use private, individual arbitration to settle problems with businesses. Forced arbitration must be abolished if social and economic injustice is to be meaningfully addressed and corrected Forced arbitration clauses are very prevalent. The Federal Arbitration Act has been broadly interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent years in favor of corporate interests, allowing the majority of arbitration clauses and class action waivers in consumer and employment contracts.

Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are a requirement for many of the top companies in America, including banks, airlines, IT firms, private student loan providers, and insurance providers. In consumer contracts, 81 of the top 100 American companies have arbitration clauses, and 78 have class action waivers. Similar to this, more than half of private sector non-union employers—who together employ more than 60 million workers—require employees to sign arbitration agreements. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of forced arbitration also greatly rose.


Image via: World Atlas

What access to justice is prevented by compelled arbitration?

In the past, litigation, and particularly class action lawsuits, have aided in making sure that businesses abide by the laws that safeguard the rights of consumers and workers. Holding businesses accountable is exceedingly challenging for people when they are unable to participate in class actions. Individual arbitration proceedings are typically expensive and time-consuming for the average person. Most parties that are required to arbitrate disputes do not really use arbitration. They do not pursue their claims, and the injustices they have experienced remain unpunished. Forced arbitration therefore gives businesses a way to escape punishment for violating the rights of customers and workers Even when parties engage in arbitration proceedings, the results are frequently not favorable to them. Compared to litigation, victims have a decreased chance of winning in arbitration, and if they do, they typically receive less compensation for their losses. In forced arbitration agreements, corporations frequently tack on particular clauses that hurt customers and workers who opt to arbitrate their disputes. In arbitration, “the ordinary customer ends up paying financial firms,” according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute.

Additionally, despite the phrase “arbitration agreement,” people who take a new job or make a purchase almost never consciously “consent” to a stipulation requiring forced arbitration. These provisions are frequently concealed in contracts’ terms and conditions as lengthy legalese. According to research, the majority of consumers are unaware that when they sign a forced arbitration agreement, they are giving up their right to sue. This information shows how the significant power disparities between common people and businesses are reflected in forced arbitration.

Forced arbitration reproduces current disparities

Some people are more likely than others to be taken advantage of by businesses. As a result, class action waivers and compulsory arbitration clauses exacerbate social and economic inequity. Predatory lending and consumer fraud, for instance, disproportionately harm low-income persons of color. Additionally, immigrants, people of color, and low-income workers are more prone to experience rights violations like wage theft and hazardous working conditions. These workers may further encounter identity-based workplace discrimination. These figures are especially worrisome because businesses with high concentrations of low-income, Black, and female laborers frequently use compelled arbitration agreements. Forced arbitration agreements can worsen current disparities when they discourage corporations from suing vulnerable communities because they are more likely to do so victims of unlawful behavior from pursuing justice in court

Workers and consumers are also prevented from addressing systemic problems and bringing about significant social change when mandatory arbitration agreements forbid class lawsuits. Class lawsuits can bring corporate wrongdoing to the public’s attention and compel businesses to alter their procedures. Arbitration, in contrast, is a private process. The public is not informed of the basis for the allegations until they are individually compelled into arbitration. Because companies are not deterred by the possibility of public responsibility, this secrecy also makes it possible for workers’ and customers’ rights to be violated in the future.

The ongoing battle to abolish mandatory arbitration

Recently, there have been some encouraging developments in the campaign to abolish forced arbitration. Advocates emphasized how forced arbitration agreements have been used to suppress victims of workplace sexual assault as the Me Too movement gained traction. The Ending Compulsory Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, approved by Congress in March 2022, forbids the use of class action waivers and forced arbitration agreements in matters involving allegations of sexual assault and harassment. The measure is a significant accomplishment that will give survivors a voice in the legal system. Additionally, in two unanimous pro-worker decisions in the summer of 2022, the Supreme Court curtailed the enforcement of some compulsory arbitration agreements.

There has been an increase in grassroots activity and organization against forced arbitration. For instance, Google employees from all around the world took part in mass walkouts in 2019 to protest the usage of compulsory arbitration clauses in the company’s employment contracts. Google stopped using agreements that required forced arbitration for its employees in response to public outrage. Similar to this, several sizable law firms ceased requiring their employees to sign agreements for compulsory arbitration in response to student protests there is still considerable work to be done, as shown by the persistence of forced arbitration. The Impact Fund commends the community leaders working to stop forced arbitration at the Supreme Court, other appellate courts, and in Congress, including Public Justice, Gupta Wessler, and Altshuler  Berzon. The research of academics who have shed light on the drawbacks of compulsory arbitration, such as Professor Myriam Gilles of Cardozo Law and Professor Alexander Colvin of Cornell University, also supports this position.

Image via: Humanrightscareers

Our earlier blog entries demonstrate how forced arbitration impairs workplace civil rights and hinders corporate responsibility. Being a part of the coalition of civil rights organizations that is working to have the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act passed is an honor. The FAIR Act would outlaw the use of all compulsory arbitration clauses and class action waivers before any issues involving employment, consumers, civil rights, or antitrust are even filed. Early in 2022, the FAIR Act was approved by the House of Representatives; it is currently pending in a Senate committee For employees and consumers to have equitable access to justice, the FAIR Act must be passed. Forced arbitration agreements allow corporate misbehavior and hinder systemic change by taking away people’s legal rights. Forced arbitration must be abolished if social and economic injustice is to be meaningfully addressed and corrected.

Receiving medical and psychological care internally

Nobody anticipates that being in prison would be enjoyable. However, in West Virginia, being imprisoned can be more than simply an unpleasant experience, in part because of a crucial jail function that many people who have never been inside may not think about: healthcare When someone is locked up, they are unable to just go to a doctor whenever they need or want to; instead, they are dependent on the medical and mental healthcare services offered inside the jail. That’s challenging enough if you suffer from a chronic illness like diabetes or asthma; for example, you might not be permitted to carry your inhaler with you and be given insulin in fixed dosages rather than amounts based on your blood sugar levels. Particularly in West Virginia, a large number of inmates struggle with major addiction or mental health disorders in addition to these types of diseases. People in jails require prompt, competent medical and mental healthcare that is of the highest caliber. But that’s not what a lot of people have received in West Virginia prisons recently.

Although this issue is widespread, it is particularly severe in West Virginia: according to a report from Reuters published in October 2020, the death rate in West Virginia’s jails was more than 50% higher than the average national death rate for the years 2009 to 2019. In West Virginia prisons, inmates are dying by overdosing, through suicide, and from diseases like COVID. Numerous of these fatalities are indicative of the same fundamental issue: inadequate medical and mental healthcare in West Virginia’s 10 regional jails.

That serves as the setting. This holds true.

A group of prisoners who had lodged a pro se complaint regarding the problems they were having while being housed at the Western Regional Jail in West Virginia received legal representation from Mountain State Justice in 2019. The quality (or lack thereof) of physical and mental treatment in all ten regional jails in West Virginia has come to dominate this case’s focus over time.

In Baxley v. Jividen, it was contended that because the medical and mental healthcare offered in West Virginia’s 10 regional jails was so subpar, the state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was infringing on the rights of those who were detained there. Although the complaint was initially brought by a small group of people, it was later certified as a class action in 2020, with a class that included everyone who is presently or will be imprisoned in a West Virginia regional jail The Baxley case included a class of tens of thousands of known and unidentified people as well as six outstanding named class representatives who, although being behind bars or just leaving it, were willing to speak out about the inadequate medical care they had gotten. Even more admirably, the case’s sole goal was to alter the healthcare delivery system. As a result, the six named class representatives took the responsibility of speaking up for the group, risking their own safety, and doing so without any expectation of financial reward for their effort. Every one of our designated class representatives, every prisoner who spoke with us or our medical experts, and every person who took a deposition or signed a declaration for this lawsuit did so not out of a desire to receive monetary compensation, but out of a desire to prevent others from going through the terrible experiences and subpar care they had.

After approaching trial, we settled with DCR in May 2022, which we hope will significantly enhance the medical and mental healthcare offered in the local jails. For the next two years, Mountain State Justice will be reviewing internal reports, receiving aggregated data and individual files, and speaking with detainees across all ten facilities to ensure that the improved care our class fought for and deserves is being provided. The Division of Corrections has also implemented an internal audit system for the first time with three full-time employees. The Southern District of West Virginia issued a ruling approving our settlement on September 27, 2022.


Image via: Yeshiva

This lawsuit began when a number of prisoners made the decision to speak up for their rights in an effort to better conditions for all prisoners in Western Regional Jail. Although the case is still ongoing, it has finally reached a point where everyone detained in all West Virginia regional jails will receive improved medical and mental health care. We at Mountain State Justice count it a privilege to have represented and will continue to represent this class as counsel. We are happy to have started the settlement implementation phase and are working hard to make sure that inmates in West Virginia’s jails receive the medical treatment they require. For your information, even though the phrases “jail” and “prison” are sometimes used synonymously, they are distinct. People who are awaiting trial, have minor charges against them, have not yet received a sentence, or have been sent to prison are kept in jails. People who have been found guilty of more serious offenses are placed in prisons. Although every institution is unique, in general, jails and prisons are extremely different settings with very different issues.

According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, India is placed 75th out of 179 nations, but its rating has steadily increased from 2.7 in 2002 to 3.1 in 2011. Corruption in India manifests as bribes, tax evasion, exchange restrictions, embezzlement, etc. According to a 2005 research by Transparency International (TI) India, more than 50% of respondents [dubious – discuss] had personal experience using bribery or influence peddling to achieve a task in a public position The loss to the exchequer, the increase in the price of services provided at public expense, the unfavorable investment environment, political instability, and unethical behavior are the main economic effects of corruption.The study by TI India calculates the financial cost of small corruption in eleven essential services.