congestion in the court system, speeding up resolution of disputes, and making the resolution of cases more economical to all parties” (citations omitted)). {48} Fiser is correct that arbitration clauses are only enforceable under the FAA if they “make proceedings accessible so that claimants can effectively enforce their rights.” See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991). However, when invited to do so, Fiser has failed to make a showing that merely because he is precluded from pursuing his claims as a class action, he is being subject to large arbitration costs that preclude him from effectively vindicating his rights. See Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 90-91, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) (<HOLDING>); cf. Snowden, 290 F.3d at 638-39 (rejecting
holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process holding that the party opposing arbitration has the burden of proving the probability of incurring prohibitive costs holding that the nondebtor spouse has the burden of proving nondischargeability holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant