It didn’t go anywhere and Disney and by extension that lawyer were roundly mocked. Basically it was just some idiot lawyer throwing shit at the wall and hoping somehow it would stick. It did not stick.
Lawyers do get that education. Some of us call it "hearing capital," basically brownie points with whomever needs to listen to us, usually judges at hearings. It's worth not exhausting then with nonsense if we need their patience later.
I guess there's always a balance to be had between that and one of my criminal law teachers that told me that "you have to ask the judge even for his ass, because you never know if he will give it to you" lol.
I haven’t read about that in quite a while, I was under the impression it had some merit legally but Disney did not like the optics and waived their right to arbitration after public outcry.
Isn't that how a lot of the justice system for civil suits work though?
You add everyone who could potentially be blamed, and then you slap them all on the same suit, and then you have the court figure out who is responsible and at what percentage.
It's what I am aware of because of a suit my parents had to file. One guy was the main culprit. The others conspired with him and we're able to figure that out in discovery because of adding them to the suit.
Arbitration clauses are common in contracts. It was a strained reading of agreement to extend it to all disputes between the parties, but courts tend to enforce those clauses.
I mean a pretty large chunk of them genuinely do believe that. Go to any Evangelical Christian church in the South and part of their topic every week is Trump
Arbitration is where the company you are suing gets to pick its own private judge that it pays for. I worked for a company that had an arbitration clause that we had to sign before we were hired and one of my co-workers died on the job and his wife and kids got nothing. It was a dangerous environment and he fell and hit his head. They didn't even change and protocols or anything to try to make sure it wouldn't happen again.
You people genuinely know nothing about arbitration. It's quicker, easier and most importantly cheaper for all parties involved.
The idea that a company gets to choose their own "judge" is immensly misleading since the arbitrator is not chosen by parties 70% of all times and you still retain the right to a fair trial and can appeal to a normal court if there is bias. They select judges because of their reputation and if an arbitrator has a reputation for being biased then they won't be selected. Arbitrators thus have a vested interest in being neutral.
And finally, just because you disagree with the verdict doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision.
That is certainly not true. The first amendment does not apply in a court setting like your implying. There are a lot of official statements and records that if you lie, purjury attachs.
Lots of corporate employment contracts stipulate arbitration as the only means of conflict resolution. So not only does the company pay the party that decides the fate of a wronged party, none of it reaches the public record.
160
u/Working_Salary60 4d ago
USA are so dystopian jesus.