Two recently released survey reports measure the pervasive use of arbitration to resolve workplace disputes. Alexander J.S. Colvin of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., has concluded that, “since the early 2000, the share of workers subject to mandatory arbitration has more than doubled and now exceeds 55 percent.”
Recently I attended a Mediation Summit in Hangzhou, China, and with some other American colleagues I was given a tour of the West Lake District Court in Hangzhou, China. The lobby had arrows pointing ahead for “lawyer service,” to the left for “court,” and to the right for “mediation and rapid arbitration.”
People have a hard time letting go of their goals, and tend to be critical of any agreement that falls short. It takes sustained effort to get people to accept that something that to them appears much less than ideal is better than the available alternatives.
While documents subject to the mediation privilege may be inadmissible as evidence, an error in admitting the documents into evidence will not matter to the Court of Appeal, if admission of the evidence resulted in harmless error. While documents subject to the mediation privilege may be inadmissible as evidence, an error in admitting the documents into evidence will not matter to the Court of Appeal, if admission of the evidence resulted in harmless error.
In Hand V. Walnut Valley Sailing Club, No. 11-3228 (10th Cir. April 4,2012) plaintiff is a former member of defendant sailing club. Soon after plaintiff complained that his storage shed at the club didn’t comply with the American with Disabilities Act, plaintiff’s membership to the club was revoked. In response, plaintiff filed suit in federal court. The court sent the parties to mediation.
Last Thursday, February 23, 2012, Assembly Member Wagner introduced AB 2025 before the Californai State Legislature. The proposal seeks to create an exception to mediation confidentiality by amending Section 1120 of the California Evidence Code to allow the introduction of evidence.
