80 of the top 100 largest companies in America, including subsidiaries or related affiliates, have used arbitration agreements in connection with workplace-related disputes since 2010.
Of the 80 companies with arbitration agreements in the workplace, 39 use arbitration clauses containing class waivers.
Over half of the companies in the Fortune 100 appear to have imposed forced arbitration clauses on workers; such workers did not have a meaningful choice to accept or reject the arbitration clause.
Those conclusions present questions for us: if 80 of the top 100 companies use arbitration agreements in connection with workplace-related disputes, why don't 20 of the companies use arbitration agreements? If 39 of 80 companies use arbitration clauses containing class waivers, why don't 41? And if over half of the companies have imposed forced arbitration clauses on workers, why haven't nearly half not done so? Have the companies that don't rely on arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and binding arbitration made a conscious policy decision, or are they simply behind the curve set by other employers?
Above: Video/recording: Comedian Harmonists Sing Quand Il Pleut (Stormy Weather/Ohne Dich). 1933.
News about our latest reality show, Stephanie Clifford a.k.a. Stormy Daniels a.k.a. Peggy Peterson v. Donald J. Trump a.k.a. David Dennison, and Essential Consultants, LLC, LASC Case No. BC696568 (filed March 6, 2018) is now splattered across the information superhighway. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief that a non-disclosure agreement or "hush agreement" created to prevent adult film actress Stormy Daniels from communicating about her relationship with Donald J. Trump a.k.a. David Dennison, is unenforceable. A copy of the secret non-disclosure agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the very public complaint.
Meanwhile -- and this is where alternative dispute resolution enters into the picture -- President Trump's press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has announced that President Trump has already won in arbitration, thereby perhaps inadvertently admitting that President Trump, who did not sign the non-disclosure agreement, is the real party in interest seeking to shut up Ms. Daniels.
Here is my own somewhat random collection of issues relating to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement:
1. Is the agreement too ambiguous to be enforceable, because the parties are a shell corporation and/or Donald J. Trump (who is identified in a side agreement).
2. Does it matter that DJT did not sign the agreement, though there is a signature line for him?
3. Is the agreement enforceable, because there is an offer, an acceptance, consideration ($130,000), and a meeting of the minds?
4. Was there a meeting of the minds if the agreement, as DJT's press secretary apparently admitted, is for the benefit of DJT, yet he did not sign it?
5. Can DJT enforce the agreement as a third-party beneficiary?
6. Does DJT need to sue in his name to enforce the agreement on his behalf?
7. Did Ms. Daniels violate the non-disclosure agreement when she filed a public document attaching the NDA as Exhibit 1, rather than filing under seal?
8. How can a shell corporation make representations in the NDA on behalf of DJT, if the shell corporation is not his agent or attorney?
9. Did attorney Michael Cohen violate campaign election law by funneling a $130,000 payment to Ms. Daniels to help DJT win the presidential election, without declaring an in-kind campaign contribution?
10. Did attorney Michael Cohen violate rules of professional ethics by settling a legal dispute without a real client, or without the knowledge of the client, whose fingerprints are not on the agreement?
11. Has the NDA been compromised by public statements of the President's attorney and the President's press secretary, such that it cannot be enforced?
12. How do you feel about the use of NDAs to prevent someone from speaking about the sexual conduct of an important public figure? Is it important that the NDA was entered into just before the election, when DJT was not yet a public official, rather than after the election? Does it matter to you whether the person seeking to speak was a victim, or whether the conduct was consensual?
13. Is enforceability of this NDA, concerning the President, against public interest?
14. Is the million dollar liquidated damages provision in the NDA unenforceable as a forfeiture having no reasonable relationship to the actual injury? Has DJT ever been monetarily damaged by publicity?
15. If an award has been issued against Ms. Daniels in arbitration, how will it now be enforced? Does a petition to confirm the award in court lead to a public circus that will vitiate the benefit of such an award?
16. Are the private lives of important public officials fair game?
17. Was the original sin an effort to blackmail, making enforcement of the arbitration remedies with the help of a private arbitration process more acceptable?
Dear readers, please let us know if you spot additional issues worthy of consideration.
BONUS: The original Comedian Harmonists, who sing Stormy Weather in its French version in the recording above, were a German harmony ensemble active between 1928 and 1934. They are the subject of an entertaining 1997 German movie entitled The Harmonists, directed by Joseph Vilsmaier. Our blogger's grandfather, Eric Collin, was the second tenor in the group.