In 2016, consumers will likely gain the right to bring claims against banks, credit card issuers, and other lenders in class actions instead of only through mandatory, one-on-one arbitrations.
In an order recently issued EEOC v Jetstream Ground Services, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-02340 (D. Colo. Sept. 29, 2015), Judge Christine Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled that the EEOC had satisfied all of its pre-suit conciliation requirements and demonstrated sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on behalf of a class of Muslim women who allege that Jetstream Ground Services, Inc. (“Jetstream”), failed to accommodate their wearing hajibs and long skirts on the job, failed to hire them, laid off or reduced their hours, and discriminated against them on the basis of their religion.
Much is now being written about searching jury information online and what happens when the lawyer blunders by crossing ethical boundaries.
On October 7, the CFPB announced at a field hearing in Denver, Colorado, that it plans to propose rules via its rule-making authority that would prohibit financial services companies from including class action waivers in arbitration clauses with consumers.
A group of Love Canal area residents may bring personal injury and property damage claims against the city of Niagara Falls, NY and others for their alleged failure to clean up contamination at the Love Canal Superfund site.
On October 7, 2015, CFPB Director Richard Cordray announced the agency’s plan to issue regulations that would prohibit many financial services companies from requiring consumers to waive their right to bring a class action lawsuit via a pre-dispute arbitration agreement and instead pursue claims in arbitration.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California state court rule on unconscionable provisions that is purportedly applied more stringently to arbitration agreements than to other contracts.