Marcia Coyle at National Law Journal parrots the conclusions of Professor Michael LeRoy's study attacking employment arbitration, even though those conclusions are, as I discussed last week, completely divorced from his underlying dataset and thus have no empirical basis. The article does have a good discussion of the trial bar's divide-and-conquer strategy to gradually eliminate consumers' ability to choose the benefits from mandatory binding arbitration, though not of the tactic of trumpeting bogus studies to further that goal.
National Law Journal on Michael LeRoy employment arbitration study
Related Entries:
- The Unconscionability of California's "Amendable" Arbitration Agreements
- Two podcasts
- Public Citizen's Unfair Attack on Arbitration
- von Spakovsky defends arbitration
- American Express v. Italian Colors: Reversal (5-3)
- New Featured Discussion - Class Actions and Arbitration: American Express v. Italian Colors
- American Express v. Italian Colors
- New Report - Class Actions, Arbitration, and Consumer Rights: Why Concepcion is a Pro-Consumer Decision
- Some evidence Concepcion was pro-consumer
- Cert grant in American Express v. Italian Colors
- Rutledge and Drahozal on CFPB arbitration regulation
- Sherry on Dukes and Concepcion
- Plaintiffs' lawyers protect their cartel by bringing antitrust suit
- The Carlyle IPO
- Frank v. Fitzpatrick: I get to say "told you so!"
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Communications Manhattan Institute communications@manhattan-institute.org |