<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Portland Oregon Personal Injury and Class Action Attorney – Lawyer – Paul and Sugerman PC &#187; arbitration clause</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pspc.com/category/arbitration-clause/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pspc.com</link>
	<description>David vs. Goliath view from Oregon trial lawyers at Paul &#38; Sugerman, PC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:16:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Nursing home arbitration clauses stripping away accountability</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/06/nursing-home-arbitration-clauses-stripping-away-accountability</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/06/nursing-home-arbitration-clauses-stripping-away-accountability#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portland personal injury lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nursing home litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s a half-decent summary of how mandatory arbitration clauses strip away patients and families&#8217; ability to hold bad nursing homes accountable for abusive care. It&#8217;s only half right, though, as the writer misses the most significant problem with mandatory arbitration clauses.
Too often, they come with rules that make pursuit of any claim impossible. As well, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/06/nursing-home-arbitration-clauses-stripping-away-accountability/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank collusion case goes forward: the you-got-no-choice-on-arbitration case</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/bank-collusion-case-goes-forward-the-you-got-no-choice-on-arbitration-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/bank-collusion-case-goes-forward-the-you-got-no-choice-on-arbitration-case#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:43:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon class action lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[red tapes chronicle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kudos to MSNBC&#8217;s Red Tape Chronicles for reporting again on a quiet but important consumer issue.  As the good people at Public Justice explain, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a federal court&#8217;s dismissal of a claim brought against a who&#8217;s who of credit card companies, claiming that they colluded to require subscribers to take [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/bank-collusion-case-goes-forward-the-you-got-no-choice-on-arbitration-case/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Bad on Arbitration&#8211;Employers Get Better Outcome</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/more-bad-on-arbitration-employers-get-better-outcome</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/more-bad-on-arbitration-employers-get-better-outcome#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:42:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Oregon class action lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon injury lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Somehow I&#8217;m not surprised. But this report summarizes a new study indicating that employers fare better than employees when an arbitration result is challenged in court. The author describes the employees&#8217; chances in arbitration reviews as &#8220;snowballing futility.&#8221; Nice phrase; horrible condition.
Congress is set to revisit the mandatory arbitration system abuses.  Those who benefit [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/more-bad-on-arbitration-employers-get-better-outcome/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Good Summary of Looming Battle on Mandatory Arbitration</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/good-summary-of-looming-battle-on-mandatory-arbitration</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/good-summary-of-looming-battle-on-mandatory-arbitration#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:08:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Camber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon consumer lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/good-summary-of-looming-battle-on-mandatory-arbitration</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As Congress considers changing rules on mandatory arbitration clauses, here&#8217;s an account of how Chamber of Commerce is gearing up to protect business interests. The point that is missing from all this is in the fine print.
Those of us who oppose mandatory arbitration generally do so because of the provisions that you don&#8217;t see because [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/good-summary-of-looming-battle-on-mandatory-arbitration/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class Action Bans: The Get Out of Jail Free Card</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/class-action-bans-the-get-out-of-jail-free-card</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/class-action-bans-the-get-out-of-jail-free-card#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Oregon class action lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/class-action-bans-the-get-out-of-jail-free-card</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good article today at MSNBC on the problem with class action bans. This installment of the Red Tape Chronicles covers the class action ban problem.
You probably &#8220;agreed&#8221; to this when you bought a cell phone, applied for a credit card, or subscribed to cable. Buried in the fine print of many form contracts is a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/04/class-action-bans-the-get-out-of-jail-free-card/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Horrifying Mandatory Arbitration Case</title>
		<link>http://www.pspc.com/2008/03/admin-claim</link>
		<comments>http://www.pspc.com/2008/03/admin-claim#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:19:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[arbitration clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sugerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex abuse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pspc.com/2008/03/admin-claim</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As noted in a marvelous on-line LA Times piece, mandatory arbitration clause abuse has reached a new high. Or is that low?
Peggy Garrity writes about the terrible case of the woman who claimed to have been drugged and raped by her co-workers while employed in Iraq by KBR, the contractor and former Halliburton subsidiary. Read [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pspc.com/2008/03/admin-claim/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
