Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEigen, Zev J.
dc.contributor.authorSherwyn, David S.
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-12T21:05:10Z
dc.date.available2020-09-12T21:05:10Z
dc.date.issued2017-06-01
dc.identifier.other10313189
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/71814
dc.description.abstract[Excerpt] When it comes to the issue of pre-dispute mandatory arbitration, the concept of attaining justice for all parties in a vacuum instead of in comparison to the fall back—the litigation and agency adjudication processes. In this Article, we address each of the components of arbitration, but in context to the alternative and thus, conclude that a fixed arbitration system will provide the type of justice unavailable in the current system.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.rightsRequired Publisher Statement: © Cornell University. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
dc.subjectarbitration
dc.subjectclass action
dc.subjectdispute resolution
dc.subjectempirical studies
dc.subjectMandatory Arbitration Act (MAA)
dc.subjectpre-dispute mandatory arbitration
dc.titleDeferring for Justice: How Administrative Agencies Can Solve the Employment Dispute Quagmire by Endorsing an Improved Arbitration System
dc.typearticle
dc.description.legacydownloadsSherwyn85_Deferring_for_justice.pdf: 143 downloads, before Aug. 1, 2020.
local.authorAffiliationEigen, Zev J.: Littler Mendelson
local.authorAffiliationSherwyn, David S.: dss18@cornell.edu Cornell University


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Statistics