Musings on law, tech, chess & other topics by a geek

Every time I sign up for a webs service, buy a piece of electronics or click to download a piece of software there is a contract that I theoretically consent to.  These contracts of adhesion usually are extremely one-sided pieces of rubbish that would never exist if users were actually brought to the table to negotiate the terms. But that never happens, the contract are written by lawyers whose job it is to protect the corporations they work for while often limiting your rights.

In the last 20 years we have seen these contracts grow in length, complexity and over all use.  Today the Supreme Court has a chance to take a serious bite out of the validity of these contracts.  The SCOTUS is hearing o Rent-a-Center v. Jackson which examines whether judges retain discretion to invalidate an arbitration agreement because it is unconscionable, even when the contract clearly delegated this power to an arbitrator.

In 2004 Rent-A-Center and Antonio Jackson entered into an employment contract.  The contract included an arbitration provision which specifically delegated to an arbitrator, “and not any federal, state, or local court or agency,” the exclusive authority “to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement.”   In 2007, Jackson, who is African American, filed a lawsuit against Rent-A-Center, claiming he had been the victim of racial discrimination and retaliation and asking the court to invalidate the arbitration clause.

The outcome of this case could have a profound impact on contracts of adhesion depending on if they uphold the clause and why, this is a question of due process or more simply a case about access to ones day in court.

For more info on the case check out: SCOTUSwiki on Rent-a-Center  v. Jackson