The Southern District of Texas in Houston has ordered the question of arbitrability to be decided by an arbitrator in an employment discrimination case. In Valdez v. Autozone Inc., No. H-14-3386 (S.D. Tex., February 17, 2015), a woman, Valdez, filed a motion to compel arbitration against her former employer, Autozone, in the Southern District of Texas.

A bill seeking to establish an arbitration process designed to protect patients who are treated by an out-of-network provider during an emergency room visit from being hit with hefty medical charges is currently before the Texas Legislature.

In Part Eight, we talked about how, notwithstanding all the apparent benefits special masters can have for civil litigation, there is a rap, rightly or wrongly, on special masters that they can be (1) expensive and potentially ineffective if they merely add another layer of decision-making to challenge; (2) prone to alternate agenda; and (3) chosen because of connections to the judge, rather than management skills or independence. Yet, here we are advocating for increased use of special masters. How do we beat this rap?

E. Gary Spitko, Professor of Law at the Santa Clara University School of Law has published an interesting article entitled, “The Will as an Implied Unilateral Arbitration Contract,” Florida Law Review, Forthcoming; Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 6-15.