Proposed arbitration rules would limit fees and bar biased providers

An employee or consumer could take a covered dispute to court if the contract requires them to pay much higher fees for arbitration than for filing in court. The rule covers arbitration agreements or proceedings between an employer and employee, or a business and consumer. This applies when the other party is an employer or business. Federal law may override this rule. The proposal would cover arbitration agreements entered into or renewed on or after its effective date, but the governor vetoed it and it did not take effect.

A person or arbitration organization could not administer an arbitration or appoint or serve as its arbitrator if it has a discriminatory rule or practice, or one that blocks a party from asserting rights or bringing a claim. This applies to an individual, arbitrator, or arbitration organization involved in an arbitration proceeding. The rule covers discrimination against a party, type of party, or attorney, including different procedures based on how many similar claims or claims from the same attorney were filed. It also covers rules or practices that prevent or effectively prevent a party, type of party, or attorney from asserting rights or bringing a claim. The proposal would cover arbitration agreements entered into or renewed on or after its effective date, but the governor vetoed it and it did not take effect.

A party that fails to meet an arbitration award record's requirements within 120 days could owe damages caused by the failure; an employer or business in a covered dispute could owe damages equal to twice the amount in the record. The rules cover parties to an arbitration agreement or proceeding; the double-damages rule applies to an employer or business in a dispute with an employee or consumer. The double-damages rule applies when the other party is an employee or consumer. These damages would be in addition to the requirements for the award record. The 120-day periods would pause while an appeal is pending. The 120-day periods would pause during an appeal. The proposal would cover arbitration agreements entered into or renewed on or after its effective date, but the governor vetoed it and it did not take effect.

The proposal would remove arbitration proceedings from the stated bar on exemplary damages, which are extra damages meant to punish especially wrongful conduct. This concerns exemplary damages in arbitration and administrative proceedings. The bar would remain for administrative proceedings unless another law provides otherwise. The proposal would cover arbitration agreements entered into or renewed on or after its effective date, but the governor vetoed it and it did not take effect.