Rather than simply parrot the misleading arguments Public Citizen puts out, why not look at the sources we cite in the multiple posts linked to from the article?

Both of those statements conflict with articles I have read time and time again. So are you wrong or is the entire lefty-blogosphere wrong?

I think the Consumerist agrees that arbitration definately has a place in the world but does binding MANDATORY arbitration help consumers? When the arbitration “judges” stop getting arbitration work if they ever find in favor of the consumer, I think that implies an unfair advantage to the business over the consumer.

Thanks, and keep up the good dialogue.

The response was childish and perhaps even a bit misleading as to what the law actually holds.

Plaintiff apparently resides in CA, not Houston.

I think your post underestimates the extent to which a Plaintiff’s lawyer can undermine an individual’s legitimate claims through sheer incompetence and/or credibility-destroying sensationalism.

Adding Halliburton as a Defendant doesn’t seem clearly ridiculous considering potential corporate veil issues, the possibility that some John Does may have been Halliburton employees, etc… (Listing every KBR entity, on the other hand, is absurd).

Re: the ‘locked in a container’ allegation—In the Complaint she alleges that she was placed in a trailer with a bed, bath, etc…, but (the horror!) no phone or TV. This seems to be entirely appropriate—they couldn’t very well send her back to the barracks where she claims to have been raped.

In a case like this, any discovery limits in arbitration will likely be negligible. The only practical effects of arbitration are that filings won’t be immediately (or possibly ever) public, potential damages (i.e., settlement value) will be limited by the absence of a jury (the reason plaintiffs’ lawyers hate arbitration), and appellate review is limited (arguably a bigger concern for employers than employees).

Frankly, I like this type of response. The brief addresses the other side of “ugly-lawyering” – the one this cite seldom addresses – that of defense counsel spending time and money on petty procedural matters. Haliburton’s counsel is whining. Whining about driving a little further, about paper documents which will never be shared in paper form, about injustice – when such is not the case. Plaintiff’s counsel simply calls them on it. And I think he did so well.

It’s not like the Plaintiff filed the case in San Antonio, where, if the venue provision is as liberal as it appears, he could have.

If forum shopping is permitted by legislation, then the Plaintiff gets to choose where to file.

Of course, if the venue issue is not as simple as Plaintiff would have us believe, then all bets are off. I just wish you would take your blinders off to the abuses of defense counsel. After all, they’re trial lawyers, too.