Arbitration clause invalid

[dmac1]

Don't know how much the clause has changed since this older case:

http://courts.oregon.gov/Lane/docs/mchenry160622287.pdf

 

[bacha29]

Thank you dmac1. Too bad that was only a state court ruling and not a federal court ruling. You can rest assured that X will spend millions in an effort to keep that state court ruling move moving up the chain into the federal courts. If it were it would be the beginning of the end for the next generation scam called "independent service provider".

 

[dmac1]

There was a new ruling just a few days ago on the same issue. Don't know what level. But this clause will never make it to the federal level. Anytime you try to take fedex to court for contract violations, it isn't a federal case, and fedex will try to force arbitration and ask the judge to throw your case out because of the arbitration clause. Then you'd need to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause- a whole 'nother additional cost before you can go to court. You can read the ruling to see why the clause is so unfair. But the fact that the clause has already been found unenforceable in several venues makes it easier and cheaper to fight it.

Claiming employee status is outside the scope of the arbitration clause, and in that case, it isn't even necessary to challenge it. Only if you are suing for damages as a contractor would the arbitration clause apply. But it is a perfect example of how one-sided the contract is.

 

[bacha29]

Well spoken indeed. In the end the downfall of XGround may found in the form of better informed judges, contractors and the general public. Knowledge of the law , it's proper interpretation and a willingness to seek justice could over a period of time simply wear down the business model. That looks like the way it will have to be done. Sort of like the Vietnam War. All the military muscle belonged to the U.S. but the tenacity of the North simply wore down the U.S. public's willingness to go on fighting forever.