Pennsylvania Court Denies Quixtar Arbitration in Scheibeler Case

In a stinging defeat for Quixtar's premium outside counsel, Brinks Hofer and the attorney filing the arbitration demand, Robert Sobieraj, the court basically confirmed what was intuitively obvious at the beginning  and that is that the arbitration agreement cannot be brought into force against a person who has been out of the Quixtar business for years.  Judge Dorr issued his opinion that Quixtar's arbitration process was unconscionable, anyone entering into arbitration with them can question whether they will even get a fair hearing.   

The main points cited in the opinion denying arbitration were that Scheibeler has not been an Amway/Quixtar distributor for years and that the introduction of the Quixtar arbitration was made on a "take it or leave" basis.  The opinion also stated that Amway/Quixtar/Alticor could take their complaints against Scheibeler in a public court if they wished to pursue the issue of defamation. 

"In conclusion, this Court does not believe the arbitration agreement entered in to by the plaintiff on October 4, 1997, still binds the Plaintiff (Scheibeler) almost ten years later when the Plaintiff has long ago given up his distributorship and association with Amway.  To so find would mean the Plaintiff's rights to speak about this matter would forever be gone but for the confidential arbitration in the Amway system.  Amway-Quixtar will have the same remedies as any other party would have to file a civil action to address the torts in which they claim the Plaintiff has engaged.   They are not left without a remedy."

"It makes no sense that an agreement to arbitrated disputes arising out of or relating to an Amway distributorship signed in 1997 would forever prohibit the free speech rights of an individual who is simply voicing criticisms of Amway nine years after signing an agreement to arbitrate.  Where in the agreement to arbitrate does it say that an individual such as Mr. Scheibeler will forever give up his rights to offer criticism of Amway or its practices.  The court believes the interpretation of Defendant Amway-Quixtar that the arbitration agreement would somehow still apply to public comment is far too expansive an interpretation of their arbitration system and the logical purpose and role of the system."

To me, this is a perfect example of Quixtar - Alticor - Amway using the Scientology cult like legal tactics to harass its critics.  Quixtar touts the arbitration process as a less costly method of resolving disputes, but it is my opinion that the arbitration provision also increases the number of frivolous and merit-less  disputes since the confidentiality provision of arbitration will keep those cases, where Quixtar is the bully plaintiff, out of the public light.  Quixtar can file arbitration demands at will against former and current distributors in case they ever "fall out of line".  With this tactic they can keep insider whistle blowers quiet.   I can only speculate that the website by former Amway diamond Don Lorencz was suddenly removed by a similar arbitration demand from Quixtar.

No doubt Quixtar will want  to add a provision to its rules requiring that all people agreeing to be Quixtar distributors will agree to arbitrate cases in their private court system for the rest of their entire life, regardless if they are still distributors or not.   This will save them similar embarrassing court spankings when former distributors decide to voice their opinion about the Amway/Quixtar/Alticor corporations.