Originally from Journal of American Arbitration (JAA)

Preview Page

I.  OVERVIEW 

II. THE COURT’S DECISION 

A. Because the Ninth Circuit Erroneously Interpreted the 1991 Civil Rights Act as Precluding Compulsorily Arbitration, Duffield was Wrongly Decided 

B. The Purpose of the 1991 Act, Increasing the Number of  Remedies  with which a Victim Can Vindicate Civil Rights, Does  Not Exclude  Arbitration. 

C. A Textual Interpretation of the Civil Rights Act Encourages the  Use  of Arbitration. 

D. The Legislative History of the Civil Rights Act Shows a Strong  Preference for Arbitration. 

III. JUDGE PREGERSON’S CONCURRING AND DISSENTING IN  PART 

IV. JUDGE REINHARDT’S DISSENT