Opinion ID: 770270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantive Rights

Text: 49 Johnson also argues that the TILA does effectively create an unwaivable right to bring a class action. The strongest statement of this argument is as follows. Congress enacted a scheme in which the court hearing a class action could set a damage figure up to a certain amount for certain patterns of conduct. This judicial flexibility in imposing damages up to $500,000 only exists if a class action is allowed, as individual plaintiff claims are generally capped at $1,000. Therefore, a right of classes to a judicially crafted punitive remedy is lost if this court orders arbitration of Johnson's claims. Similarly, if class actions are precluded, arbitrators acting in lieu of courts would not have a basis for considering, in connection with a class remedy, the frequency and persistence of compliance failures by the creditors, the number of persons adversely affected, or the creditors' intent. See 15 U.S.C. S 1640(a). 4 50 This argument is unavailing in light of Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991). The ADEA, at issue in Gilmer, presented far more powerful textual support than the TILA for concluding that there is a right to proceed collectively despite the existence of an arbitration clause. The ADEA actually provides for collective litigation. See 29 U.S.C. S 626(b) (referencing the remedies in 29 U.S.C. S 216). An action . . . may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. 29 U.S.C. S 216(b) (emphasis added). In short, the statute creates a right to sue collectively, which is not similarly created by the TILA. Yet the Supreme Court still ruled that the ADEA did not preclude arbitration notwithstanding the unavailability of the class action remedy there (and also notwithstanding all of the public interests vindicated by the statute as discussed above in Part II.C.1). See Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 32. 51 Johnson argues that Gilmer is taken out of context vis-a-vis the provision for class actions because the Supreme Court noted that the EEOC, in enforcing the ADEA, could still seek class-wide relief, while the FTC is not similarly capable. We do not believe that this argument carries any force. As discussed above, powerful punitive enforcement mechanisms remain available to administrative bodies under the Act even if these tools are not in the form of class actions. 52 Furthermore, simply because judicial remedies are a part of a law does not mean that Congress meant to preclude parties from bargaining around their availability. This is manifest in the Supreme Court's treatment of the availability of class actions in Gilmer. But `even if the arbitration could not go forward as a class action or class relief could not be granted by the arbitrator, the fact that the [ADEA] provides for the possibility of bringing a collective action does not mean that individual attempts at conciliation were intended to be barred.'  Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 32 (quoting Nicholson v. CPC Int'l Inc., 877 F.2d 221, 241 (3d Cir. 1989) (Becker, J., dissenting)) (alteration in the original). The same holds true for the TILA. Even if we were to conclude that the statute implies a right to proceed as a member of a class, Gilmer indicates that rights of this nature are waivable so long as the rights the statute was designed to protect may be vindicated by other means. We do not think this unfair. Only those who consent to credit agreements with binding arbitration clauses are forced to abandon this procedural avenue; those who do not consent to arbitration in their contracts have the full selection of forums. 5 53 In sum, Johnson's arguments that the TILA precludes arbitration are unpersuasive. [I]f Congress intended the substantive protection afforded by a given statute to include protection against waiver of the right to a judicial forum, that intention will be deducible from text or legislative history. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985). No such intent is deducible here.