arbitrators be attorneys. See id. Whatever the merits of such a requirement, the requirement of attorney-arbitrators would likely increase the costs of arbitration, and hence the employee's share of costs to arbitrate any dispute, over arbitration by non-attorneys, because the present National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes provide, in part, that “[arbitrators shall charge a rate consistent with the arbitrator’s stated rate of compensation.’’ National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes (as amended November 1, 2002), Rule 40. 6 . The court in Ingle cited the following decisions as indirectly supportive of its conclusion that the sharing of arbitration costs was substantively unconscionable: Blair v. Scott Specialty Gases, 283 F.3d 595, 605-06 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (quotations omitted); Cole v. Burns Int’l Sec.
holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area holding that in prison inmate civil rights action trial judge should hold hearing to determine what if any restraints are necessary holding that an arbitration agreement would undermine congresss intent in enacting civil rights statutes if it prevented employees who are seeking to vindicate statutory rights from gaining access to a judicial forum and then required them to pay for a judge in court holding that relators are not officers because they seek to vindicate not only public rights but their own private rights as well holding that a person has standing to bring suit under the civil rights act if she or he can show that she or he was punished for trying to vindicate the rights of minorities