U-Haul Arbitration Agreement
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a “presumption of arbiter capacity” that applications for mandatory arbitration should be accepted, unless it can be said with “positive assurance” that the compromise clause is not subject to interpretation covering the alleged litigation. See Battaglia v. McKendry, 233 F.3d 720, 725 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Lincoln Univ. de Com. Sys. Ed. v. Lincoln Univ.
Chapter of Am. Ass`n of Univ. Professors, 354 A.2d 576, 581-82 (Pa. 1976)). The presumption of simplicity “is particularly applicable where the arbitration clause in issue is broad.” Id. U-Haul asserts that the Jensen are bound by the arbitration agreement in the lease agreement, although the couple is not part of the agreement. The defendants state that eMove is prepared to cover Kauffman`s arbitration fees and the arbitrators` fee share and to agree that the provisions of the current wage and hourly statutes should govern the award of legal fees. Defs. Answer 16 n.5, ECF 19. However, the Court of Justice does not have the right to consider this offer as part of its scruple analysis. See Parilla v.
IAP Worldwide Servs., VI, Inc., 368 F.3d 269, 285 (3d cir. 2004) (“W) must determine the absence of scruples at the time of the creation of the contract and a subsequent offer to waive certain contractual provisions may have no bearing on our analysis.” Thus, Nino`s third circle refused to separate the unacceptable provisions from a work stoppage agreement if the provisions were “very one-sided, with only one identifiable purpose – to create benefits for the employer that are not granted to the employee.” 609 F.3d to 207. The agreement provided for provisions allowing the employer to strike two members of the arbitration panel, when the worker could strike only one, and required the worker to file a detailed complaint within five days of the underlying events, when the employer was not required to do so. See also Alexander v. Anthony Int`l, L.P., 341 F.3d 256, 271 (3d cir. 2003) (by stating that severance pay is not an appropriate remedy if the agreement not only imposes incriminating costs, but requires workers to respect an inappropriate time limit that does not bind the employer and limits the worker`s remedies.