Senate Proceeding 10-06-09 on Oct 6th, 2009 :: 1:23:30 to 1:30:50
Total video length: 5 hours 19 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:11 Duration: 0:07:20 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

1:23:23 to 1:23:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: quorum call: mr. sessions: mr. president? officer the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i'd ask dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would just like to speak about the franken amendment, if it's okay with the bill managers the amendment would impose the will of congress on private individuals and companies in a

1:23:30 to 1:30:50( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jeff Sessions

1:23:48 to 1:24:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: retroactive invalidating employment contracts without due process of law. it's a political amendme really at bottom, representing a -- sort of a political attack directed at halliburton, which is a politically -- a matter of sensitivity.

1:24:09 to 1:24:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: notwithstanding the congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. that's just not how we should handle matters in the united states senate. certainly without a lot of support or at least the opinion of the department of defense. senator franken introduced the

1:24:30 to 1:24:50( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: amendment because he does not like the fact that there are arbitration in employment contracts. i would suggest that is common all over america today. the supreme court of the united states has already resolved that arbitration agreements contained in employment only veiled -- only valid but in

1:24:51 to 1:25:12( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: most instances beneficial. in most instances, arbitration is considered to be benefic in fact, employees tend to win more they do in lawsuits in court. soic that's a matter we should consider. this is what justice kennedy on

1:25:13 to 1:25:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the supreme court wrote in adams v. circuit city -- quote -- "arbitration agreements allow parties to avoid the cost of litigation, a benefit that may in employment litigation which often involves smaller sums of money than disputes concerning commercial contracts."

1:25:34 to 1:25:54( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: so i believe instead of eliming should probably be looking for ways to utilize mediation and arbitration more in these kind of disputes. indeed, a recent article published in june of 2009 entitled, "arbitrators less

1:25:55 to 1:26:16( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: prone to grant dispositive motions than courts," the author made the following points. quote -- "arbitrators are generally much more reluctant than court motions." that is, to wipe out a lawsuit altogether. "whether they are motions to dismiss a complaint or artration demand or motions for summary judgment.

1:26:17 to 1:26:38( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: indeed, the rules o most major arbitration providers are silent about whether an arbitrator may entertain it goes on to say -- quote -- "while courts have held that arbitrators have the inherent power to grant dispositive motions, the lack of explicit rules on the issues reflects the hesitance that most arbitrators

1:26:39 to 1:26:59( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: feel in granting d motions without a fact hearing." it goes on to say -- quote -- "there are at least three institutional reasons which highlight some of the advantages of arbitration. one" -- the article says -- quote -- "first, while every litigant is entitled to appeal the grant of a dispositive

1:27:00 to 1:27:20( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: motion in a federal or state court, a final decision in arbitration is subject to far less review. mowfer, apell -- m appellate court review of such a grant is de novo with the allegations or evidence, as the case may be, read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. in a

1:27:21 to 1:27:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: trial court has interpreted the law, the reviewing court is free to interpret and apply the law differently." basically they're arbitrators let a person who's filed a complaint about their employment termination or agreement have a better shake of getting to court and having

1:27:42 to 1:28:02( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: their matter heard than if you file a lawsuit, because strict rules of summary judgmen toss a lot of these lawsuits in an early stage. it goes on to say, "second, the second difference between courts and arbitrators that explains wh

1:28:03 to 1:28:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: grant motions to dismiss an employee's lawsuit is a differing level of concern about discovery. in the u.s. supreme court's division in tuombi, for example, the supreme c emphasis on the sprawling, costly and hugely time time-consuming discovery that would ensue in

1:28:24 to 1:28:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: permitting a bare allegation of an antitrust conspiracy to survive a motion to dismiss and expressed concerns that such discovery will push cost-conscious settle even anemi anemic cases. discovery is much more limited in arbitrations and thus a denial of a motion to dismiss is less likely to result."

1:28:46 to 1:29:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and final, "some commentators and judges have noted that the pressure of increasing caseload at the federal and state -- that the federal and state courts have seen over the last two decades make the courts more tempted to dispose of cases by motion instead on the merits. arbitrator opposite way, by constricting,

1:29:08 to 1:29:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: not expanding, the use of dispositive motions and, in effect, allowing more cases to be fully heard." now, contracts are a property right. we do not have any allegations that the contract

1:29:31 to 1:29:51( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: franken is tryin were imposed upon employees or that fraud or coercion was involved in creating them. to invalidate these contracts would process rights of employers but the employees as well. employees could, from arbitration rather than

1:29:52 to 1:30:12( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: having to go to federal court. the congress is in no position to determine whether an employee who negotiated for additional compensation in exchange for -- minority time has expired. mr. sessions: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to have one additional moment. e presiding officer: is there objection?

1:30:13 to 1:30:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would just that i do believe that this is an important issue, that the for that the department of defense is not asking for this. that it's a reaction to some specific event, i assume, that does not justify changing

1:30:34 to 1:30:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: federal law. arbitration in itself can be better for employees than filing a court -- a lawsu expensive federal court, and i believe that we ought to at least dig into this issue far more in depth than weave