awards is sufficient to protect statutory rights”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 811, 120 S.Ct. 44, 145 L.Ed.2d 40 (1999); Boyd v. Town of Hayneville, 144 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1280-81 (M.D.Ala.2001) (noting that “judicial review” of any arbitration award is available in rejecting argument that potential costs of arbitration were excessive); Arakawa v. Japan Network Group, 56 F.Supp.2d 349, 355 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (maintaining jurisdiction “over any subsequent petition with respect to the award”). Similarly, at least one court has held that the plaintiff should submit the issue of excessive arbitration costs to the arbitrator after the arbitrator reaches a conclusion on the underlying complaint. See Klinedinst v. Tiger Drylac, USA, Inc., No. 01CV040, 2001 WL 1561821, at *14 (D.N.H. Nov.28, 2001) (<HOLDING>). It is apparently for these reasons that the
holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action holding that plaintiff cannot be forced to submit to an arbitration process that imposes costs that render the arbitral forum less accessible than a judicial forum that the arbitrator is obligated to allocate costs and fees in accordance with the law and that therefore plaintiff bears no risk by proceeding to arbitration holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs holding that where the arbitration agreement was silent on feesplitting and the costs imposed upon the plaintiff by the aaa were not prohibitive the plaintiff had presented little evidence to indicate that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive and the fees and costs of arbitration did not render the arbitration scheme unconscionable holding that arbitration agreement requiring litigant to pay onehalf of arbitration costs failed to provide an accessible forum in which litigant could resolve his statutory rights