Home Life Ins. v. Moon

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that Hooters' breach was \by no means insubstantial\ but involved contractual performance \so egregious that the result was hardly recognizable as arbitration at all\
• holding that, under South Carolina law, an agreement was unenforceable where Hooters reserved the right to modify the rules “without notice,” and “[n]othing in the rules even prohibits Hooters from changing the rules in the middle of an arbitration proceeding”
• reiterating that “agreements to arbitrate Title VII claims are . . . valid and enforceable”
• noting that Hooters' breach was \by no means insubstantial\ but involved con- tractual performance \so egregious that the result was hardly recog- nizable as arbitration at all\
• holding arbitration agreement unenforceable because one party to agreement employed unfair rules that “creat[ed] a sham,” depriving the other party of “a system whereby disputes are fairly resolved by an impartial third party”
• noting that arbitration is “a system whereby disputes are fairly resolved by an impartial third party” and that a “scheme whereby one party to the proceeding so controls the arbitral panel” is not arbitration, but rather “a sham system”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).