Faced with paying perhaps millions in fees for approximately 2,000 laid-off employees, Twitter allegedly sent a letter to JAMS in early June, requesting that the fees instead be split between parties. However, granting that request would be a breach of JAMS’s rules. Thus, JAMS responded by telling Twitter that it would not proceed with any arbitration that did not meetJAMS’S standards, the complaint said. After that, Twitter allegedly told JAMS that it “would refuse to proceed with arbitrations in most states outside California,” attaching “a list of 891 arbitrations in which it was refusing to proceed!”
Faced with paying perhaps millions in fees for approximately 2,000 laid-off employees, Twitter allegedly sent a letter to JAMS in early June, requesting that the fees instead be split between parties. However, granting that request would be a breach of JAMS’s rules. Thus, JAMS responded by telling Twitter that it would not proceed with any arbitration that did not meetJAMS’S standards, the complaint said. After that, Twitter allegedly told JAMS that it “would refuse to proceed with arbitrations in most states outside California,” attaching “a list of 891 arbitrations in which it was refusing to proceed!”
How is that legal?