Law Commons^™

Discrimination Cases Of The 2002 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sexual Harassment And Labor Arbitration, Susan A. Fitzgibbon

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Will Eeoc V. Waffle House, Inc. Signal The Beginning Of The End For Mandatory Arbitration Agreements In The Employment Context? , Marc A. Altenbernt

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Since the inception of several employment and discrimination statutes, arbitration has grown exponentially as an alternative for the adjudication of employment disputes. The Supreme Court has traditionally held that statutory claims are indeed arbitrable pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). In an effort to end employment discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). In order to adequately effect this calling, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") was created as the Act's primary enforcement mechanism. While arbitration agreements under the FAA and …

Lack Of Meaningful Choice Defined: Your Job Vs. Your Right To Sue In A Judicial Forum, Sara Lingafelter

Seattle University Law Review

Mandatory arbitration agreements subvert an employee's constitutional right to a judicial forum and generally place unfair burdens on plaintiffs. An employee faced with the option of either signing a mandatory arbitration agreement or losing a job often has no meaningful choice. The Supreme Court, however, has failed to recognize first that Congress did not intend for mandatory arbitration to extend to Title VII claims and second, that employers often leave employees with no meaningful choice regarding mandatory arbitration. Nonetheless, state and federal judges are increasingly recognizing that arbitration agreements may be the product of procedural unconscionability. Accordingly, when employees are …

A Negotiation Approach To Mandatory Arbitration Contracts, Miriam A. Cherry

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. the First Circuit addressed whether a pre-dispute mandatory arbitration contract covered employment claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and was thus enforceable. The court held that while these types of arbitration contracts are theoretically enforceable, this particular contract was not. The First Circuit determined that the 1991 Civil Rights Act and the Older Worker's Benefit Protection Act did not preclude the enforcement of mandatory arbitration contracts, and that there was an insufficient showing of arbitral bias to prevent the contract's enforcement. The court, …

Does Title Vii Preclude Enforcement Of Compulsory Arbitration Agreements - The Ninth Circuit Says Yes - Duffield V. Robertson Stephens & (And) Co., Ryan D. O'Dell

Journal of Dispute Resolution

This casenote examines a Ninth Circuit decision that considered the impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 on the unsettled question of whether Title VII precludes employers from requiring prospective employees, as a mandatory condition of employment, to foreclose their right to bring Title VII claims in federal court. The Ninth Circuit construct the 1991 Act to preclude enforcement of individual employment agreements that require employees to arbitrate statutory claims brought under Title VII. The holding of this case establishes a controversial precedent because it is inconsistent with a seminal Supreme Court decision, the FAA mandate and other recent …

Fallacy Of Duffield V. Robertson And Rosenberg V. Merrill Lynch: The Continuing Viability Of Mandatory Pre-Dispute Title Vii Arbitration Agreements In The Post-Civil Rights Act Of 1991 Era, The, Kristen Decker, William Krizner

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Two recent decisions, one in the Ninth Circuit and one in a Massachusetts District Court, have erroneously held that mandatory Title VII pre-dispute arbitration clauses are unenforceable under the Civil Rights Act of 1991.' A statutory construction analysis of the 1991 Civil Rights Act demonstrates that Congress did not intend to abolish the use of such clauses. Instead, Congress intended to support the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration as a valid and useful forum for the resolution of disputes arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The purpose of the following Article is twofold. First, this …

Not-So-Arbitrary Arbitration: Using Title Vii Disparate Impact Analysis To Invalidate Employment Contracts That Discriminate, Miriam A. Cherry

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

On May 20, 1996, three women filed a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against the Wall Street investment firm Smith Barney. Later joined by twenty additional women, the plaintiffs alleged that Smith Barney failed to hire and promote women, created a hostile work environment, and discriminated on the basis of pregnancy and marital status. The lawsuit quickly gained widespread publicity, most notably for its accusation that the former manager of the Garden City, New York, branch had established a fraternity-like "boom-boom room" in the office basement where female employees were either excluded or harassed if allowed to enter. On …

Arbitration Of Workplace Discrimination Claims: Federal Law And Compulsory Arbitration, Norris Case

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.