Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent right about mandated arbitration, “insulated powerful economic interests from liability”, Thrivent powerful example
“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017
“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016
“I worked at Thrivent Financial full-time (More than 8 years)” “Claims to be based on Christian values but does not adhere to them.”…Former Thrivent employee
I got quite an education at an enormous financial and emotional cost when I filed claims with Thrivent Financial (for Lutherans) on 2 occasions.
They retroactively changed the contract on a disability policy I paid on religiously for 25 years to require mandated dispute resolution including arbitration.
They committed documented fraud on both occasions and demanded that even fraud go to arbitration.
They took away my day in court.
From Citizen Wells July 1, 2018.
“People around me and online may try to put me in a nice neat box such as Republican.
I do not fit.
What I am is an American who adheres to the US Constitution and rule of law.
I am not against arbitration on principle. Mutually agreed to.
I am against forced, mandated arbitration which strips away one of our basic rights.
Our day in court.”
“The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to prohibit workers from banding together to take legal action over workplace issues.
The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority. The court’s decision could affect some 25 million employment contracts.”
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a sign of profound disagreement. In her written dissent, she called the majority opinion “egregiously wrong.” In her oral statement, she said the upshot of the decision “will be huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well being of vulnerable workers.””
““Under those contracts, Justice Ginsburg wrote, it is often not worth it and potentially dangerous to pursue small claims individually. “By joining hands in litigation, workers can spread the costs of litigation and reduce the risk of employer retaliation,” she wrote.
The contracts may also encourage misconduct, Justice Ginsburg wrote.
“Employers, aware that employees will be disinclined to pursue small-value claims when confined to proceeding one-by-one, will no doubt perceive that the cost-benefit balance of underpaying workers tips heavily in favor of skirting legal obligations,” she wrote, adding that billions of dollars in underpaid wages are at issue.”
“In a 2015 dissent, Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer protection laws.””
From Citizen Wells March 26, 2019.
“From Insurance Business Magazine.
“Arbitration? No thanks
Clicking “accept” on a company’s terms and conditions – something we do daily to use and pay for products and services – usually subjects us to lengthy contractual agreements, many of which contain mandatory arbitration clauses. Proponents of arbitration might think it’s the greatest thing since whole wheat artisanal sliced bread, but mandating arbitration in consumer contracts is troublesome, and it has no place in insurance policies for individuals and small businesses.”
“However, placing mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance policies restructures this crucial aspect of the insurer-insured relationship. Companies presumably employ pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions because they believe arbitration generally benefits them – and a growing amount of research suggests they are right.”
“From the NAIC, The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016.
“Why arbitration clauses should be banned”
“Insurers that would insist on mandatory arbitration of policyholder disputes have selected the forum that they believe will be more favorable to them than to their policyholders, if not on each individual claim then in the aggregate. However, manipulating the dispute resolution process in this manner conflicts with the duties insurers owe their policyholders and is not holding their policyholders’ interests “at least equal to their own.”
If arbitration was truly a neutral forum rather than one favoring insurers, then there would be no need for an insurer to insist on its use before a dispute has even arisen.”
Arbitration can be a valuable tool. But it should not be mandated.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was right.