There's no need to get bent out of shape over arbitration, at least that's what the Appellate Term, 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts, advised the parties in Thomas v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp.
In this particular case, Mr. Thomas sued Bally's over the terms of his employment agreement. On motion, the Kings County Civil Court dismissed Thomas's case, finding that since the parties' agreement provided that all disputes relating to the contract's enforcement needed to be arbitrated, that requirement was enforceable. The Appellate Term affirmed the outcome on appeal and described arbitration as a "favored" dispute-resolution mechanism, as least as far as New York State law was concerned.
To avoid enforcement of an arbitration provision, the appellate court indicated that a party must meet a very high standard--"procedural and substantive unconscionability"--meaning that a party must show the lack of a meaningful choice together with contract terms which are "unreasonably oppressive." Since those elements weren't demonstrated in this case, the appellate court allowed the dismissal to stand.
Remember: "It's not [just] about lifting weights."
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in Thomas v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp., please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51053.htm