Skip to main content

From yesterday's oral argument in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, it appears that corporate America, and apparently some Justices on the Supreme Court, believe that there are basically only two situations in which a court can invalidate a broad, mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreement signed by an applicant for a job with a corporate employer as a condition of being hired.  First, arbitration might not be required if the would-be-employee signed the agreement only because the employer put a gun to her head or got her drunk and had her sign under the influence.  Second, the courthouse doors might be open if it were discovered that it was not the now-employed person’s signature on the agreement, but rather the handwriting of "Joe Bananas," some weirdo (courtesy of Justice Breyer’s imagination) who has been running around impersonating the poor employee.

It should be noted that these fanciful hypotheticals discussed at yesterday’s oral argument do not cover the most frequent, real world "gun-to-the-head" scenario faced by job applicants, in which their only "choice," if they want the job, is to agree to arbitrate, on the employer’s terms, any and all future disputes —a "choice" characterized by Chief Justice Roberts as "economic inequality or whatever."  Only the literal gun-to-the-head scenario will suffice, apparently; not being free to assert your right to access the courts because it means you won’t be hired and maybe won’t be able to support your family, does not.

While the hypotheticals were plentiful at argument yesterday, the actual facts of the case before the Court were little discussed.  The petitioner, Antonio Jackson, signed an agreement when he was offered a job at Rent-A-Center that required him to give up his right to access the courts in the event of a future claim against his employer, and instead submit any and all future claims to a private arbitrator.  Jackson did not have a real choice about whether to sign this agreement; he was given no opportunity to negotiate its terms, and the failure to sign would have meant he would not get the job.  The terms of the agreement were lop-sided in favor of Rent-A-Center, particularly with respect to fees and discovery procedures.  Moreover, corporate employers like Rent-A-Center are repeat players in the arbitration system and their continued patronage keeps arbitrators in profitable business, which means that arbitrators may well be predisposed in the employers’ favor.

Later, when Jackson believed he had been subjected to racial discrimination as an employee at Rent-A-Center, he sought to bring a claim in federal court under section 1981, a statutory provision originating in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that prohibits discrimination in contractual relationships, including employment.  He argued that the arbitration agreement he signed was "unconscionable" in that it was unfair and was forced on him by his employer, and that he had not meaningfully agreed to give up his right to go to court.  Rent-A-Center argued that even this threshold question of whether there was a valid, fair agreement to arbitrate must be considered by an arbitrator, not a court.  As discussed previously on Text & History here and here, and in the brief filed by CAC and other civil rights organizations in this case, precluding access to courts is particularly troubling in Section 1981 cases like Mr. Jackson’s, because the Reconstruction Congress that passed the statute was expressly concerned that federal courthouse doors be open to victims of discrimination.

Unfair, forced arbitration is not just a problem in civil rights cases, however.  As Justice Ginsburg noted at oral argument yesterday, mandatory arbitration agreements are "very common in consumer, credit card agreements, in employment contracts," and "one party has no say except to sign or not to sign."  This is quite true—as Mr. Jackson’s counsel pointed out to the Justices today, it was likely that many people, even in the gracious courtroom of the Supreme Court, were subject to arbitration agreements they didn’t even know about.  If you have a cell phone, see a doctor, or have signed just about any employment contract with a large, corporate employer, you’re likely subject to mandatory arbitration of claims that haven’t even arisen yet.   The terms of this arbitration agreement could be incredibly unfair to you, while favoring the big corporation on the other side, and even if you might have agreed to arbitration had you focused on it, you likely had no opportunity to negotiate these terms to something more equitable.

But don’t look to Justice Scalia for any sympathy if you want access to justice and find the terms of the mandatory arbitration agreement unfair.  In his view, you haven’t been coerced into anything—you’re just "a stupid person who voluntarily signs an unconscionable contract."  According to Justice Scalia, the law may in some circumstances "protect you because you are stupid, but you haven't been coerced."

This is an astonishing statement given the broad swath of Americans who are swept up into the category of people who have had no choice but to sign mandatory arbitration agreements that are lop-sided in favor of corporate entities and fundamentally unfair.  Maybe you signed that agreement in the medical office, even though it seemed wrong, because you had to get in to see the doctor to have your sick child examined and didn’t want to make a fuss.  Maybe you signed that mandatory arbitration agreement, even though it seemed unjust, when you took that job because you had no choice and you needed the work to put food on the table for your family.  But you certainly didn’t sign up for forced arbitration because you’re "stupid."

If ever there were an oral argument that drove home the need to have a Supreme Court that understands, as President Obama and others have put it lately, how the law affects "ordinary Americans"—this was it.

Cross-posted at Text & History. Elizabeth Wydra is Chief Counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to showing how the text and history of the Constitution support progressive outcomes.

Originally posted to Elizabeth Wydra on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:01 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Click here for the mobile view of the site