The parties may mutually agree on the place where the arbitration will take place. If a party requests that the hearing be held at a particular location and the other party does not object within fifteen calendar days of the AAA`s notification of the request, the venue is the requested location. If one party objects to the locale requested by the other party, the AAA has the authority to determine the locale and its decision is final and binding. The Court also found that the standard by which the arbitrator may order additional disclosures was too high in light of the above limitations. The tribunal concluded that the plaintiff had clearly alleged that he was unable to assert his rights under the law because of the restrictions imposed on him by the arbitration agreement between the parties. The impugned conditions were (1) a limitation clause, which required that the arbitration request form be filed no later than one year after which the employee knew or should have known of the existence of a claim, and (2) an discovery clause that allowed only a series of twenty hearings, including a request for all documents relied on by the defendant in response to the hearings. three statements for each party, and provided that the arbitrator may authorize additional disclosure if a party demonstrates a “significant need” and that the additional discovery is not “excessively onerous and does not unduly delay the arbitration.” 20. What if I believe I have grounds to sue my employer, but I am subject to a forced arbitration agreement? In early 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Gilmer v. Interstate v Johnson Lane Corporation (1991) 50 U.S. 20, finding that an action brought under the Employment Age Discrimination Act may be subject to binding arbitration under an arbitration provision contained in a securities registration form signed by an employee. Since the Gilmer High Court`s decision, federal district courts have issued several conflicting decisions on the applicability of various arbitration agreements, which has caused confusion and concern among employers.

The main legal argument used to avoid arbitration is the argument that the agreement is “unscrupulous,” a legal term used to invalidate an agreement that is not negotiated by the parties, and unfair in the eyes of the employee and several courts. What we can learn from this decision is that the California Supreme Court continues to support binding arbitration for labor disputes, whether contractual or tortious (discrimination, harassment and other non-contract violations). However, for the arbitration agreement to be enforceable, the agreed procedure must be fair and impartial and must not “shock” the conscience of the reviewing court because of its significant limitations and procedural obstacles. The agreement must continue to give workers the opportunity to defend their rights in a fair and impartial forum. In this situation, it is important to consult a lawyer to determine your rights. Depending on the issue and the terms of the agreement, you may need to make a quick strategic decision on whether to proceed under existing forced arbitration or to challenge the proceedings in court. There may be deadlines that approach quickly and impact your legal strategy, so it`s important to consult a lawyer immediately to keep the widest range of options to yourself. In Yost v. Procare Automotive Services ruled in 2007 that the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals had ruled that an arbitration agreement was substantially unscrupulous in limiting an employee`s entitlement to attorneys` fees related to potential punitive damages under section 4112.99. The legal limits of forced arbitration are still being defined.

The limits depend to some extent on the judicial system of the state in which the agreement is being tested, as well as the territory of the country where your case could be heard. Different federal appellate courts have taken very different positions on forced arbitration in general. Some courts have been skeptical of the application of forced arbitration against reluctant employees, while others have adopted the practice.