Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Metastasization Of Mandatory Arbitration, Alexander J.S. Colvin
The Metastasization Of Mandatory Arbitration, Alexander J.S. Colvin
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Mandatory arbitration procedures have expanded to become a common feature of American employment relations. This article presents the results of a new original survey examining the extent of mandatory arbitration, where it is most commonly used, and which employees it is most likely to affect. Overall, 53.9 percent of private sector business establishments, representing 56.2 percent of nonunion employees, have mandatory arbitration procedures. Larger employers are more likely to have adopted mandatory arbitration, as are workplaces with lower paid employees. Mandatory arbitration is particularly common in California, North Carolina, and Texas, but is widespread nationwide. Class action waivers are included …
State Legislative Update, Mark G. Boyko
State Legislative Update, Mark G. Boyko
Journal of Dispute Resolution
This bill would have prevented employers from requiring employees to arbitrate disputes arising under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In doing so, it would have changed the established law in California that written agreements to arbitrate disputes are valid and enforceable. Specifically, this bill would have invalidated arbitration agreements between employers and employees if the employer required the employee to sign the agreement as a condition of employment. A.B. 1715 would have applied to employers with five or more employees.
Pre-Dispute Mandatory Arbitration Agreements And Title Vii: Promoting Efficiency While Protecting Employee Rights - Eeoc V. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & (And) Scripps, Steven S. Poindexter
Pre-Dispute Mandatory Arbitration Agreements And Title Vii: Promoting Efficiency While Protecting Employee Rights - Eeoc V. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & (And) Scripps, Steven S. Poindexter
Journal of Dispute Resolution
While the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that claims based on statutory rights may be vindicated by arbitration, the Court has yet to determine the validity of a pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreement ("MAA") that covers Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contrary to every other district court of appeals to have considered the matter, has held that Title VII claims may not be subjected to arbitration under an MAA. The instant case once again addresses the question of whether the Ninth Circuit will …