Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Thursday, May 2, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Experts to Congress: Block forced arbitration in workplace discrimination, consumer cases

Companies can use the little-known practice to prevent employees and consumers from bringing lawsuits, instead relegating disputes to a private process that experts say favors corporate interests.

WASHINGTON (CN) — Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson joined a group of witnesses Tuesday in urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to crack down on a corporate procedure that they argue robs victims of workplace discrimination and consumers of their day in court.

Carlson, who in 2016 sued former Fox News chair Roger Ailes on sexual harassment charges, told lawmakers during a hearing that her high-profile case “could have been easily swept under the rug like countless others” by a corporate practice known as forced arbitration.

Often found as a provision in employment contracts or consumer terms of service, forced arbitration clauses bar the signer from filing a lawsuit against a company in the event of a dispute — instead pushing the case into a private arbitration process with a third-party mediator.

Carlson, a co-founder of anti-forced arbitration nonprofit Lift our Voices, said the practice strips employees, particularly victims of harassment and discrimination, of their right to choose to resolve workplace disputes through litigation.

Making matters worse, she said, the consequences of forced arbitration are not widely known.

“Employees have no idea that signing on the dotted line and accepting forced arbitration can strip them of their rights to future justice,” Carlson said. She recalled that she was told while starting at Fox News that such procedures were becoming “the way of the world.”

Employees aren’t the only ones who might find themselves on the business end of a forced arbitration clause, said Myriam Gilles, a law professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law.

“Everybody in this room is subject to a forced arbitration clause,” she told lawmakers, pointing out that credit card companies, telephone service providers and other consumer enterprises use similar terms to shield themselves from litigation.

Companies impose forced arbitration clauses to “squelch lawsuits and immunize themselves” from accountability, Gilles said.

Provisions that block employees and consumers from bringing suits against companies also hamper class-action legal efforts, the professor added. Without restrictions on forced arbitration protecting class-action lawsuits, companies “can be doing so many illegal things along the edges that are falling through the legal cracks.”

Congress has already taken some action to crack down on how companies wield forced arbitration clauses.

President Joe Biden in 2022 signed bipartisan legislation that exempted sexual assault and harassment claims from private arbitration, allowing victims of workplace harassment to seek accountability from their employers in court.

Efforts are also underway to expand those exemptions. A bill introduced last summer by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand would shield individuals alleging workplace age discrimination from forced arbitration provisions.

Carlson, who advocated for the 2022 bill, said both pieces of legislation “give Americans a choice about whether or how to seek accountability — a choice that should not be made by companies or the government."

Lawmakers were largely behind slapping heavier restrictions on arbitration.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, slammed forced arbitration practices, noting that while they were “pervasive,” the rules governing arbitration often limit the amount of evidence employees or consumers can collect to make their case and that third-party arbitrators are subject only to limited judicial review.

Graham cited his legislation — the Protecting Older Americans Act — and said he and other lawmakers were “trying to level the playing field.”

“What I want to do is to make sure that, if you feel like you’ve been discriminated against because of your age, you can have your day in court,” he said. “I think forced arbitration in that situation doesn’t serve the public interest.”

The South Carolina Republican pointed out that there were instances where arbitration services can be useful, such as mediating conflicts between businesses or seeking advice on investments. But those conflicts, he said, occur on level ground.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Generally speaking, arbitration is a good thing,” Graham said, “but there are circumstances where it doesn’t render justice.”

Despite that, some lawmakers and at least one witness were cautious about bringing the hammer down on companies who rely on arbitration to settle disputes.

Victor Schwartz, co-chair of the public policy practice group at Washington-based law firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, contended that private arbitration is cheaper and faster for claimants than taking their cases to court.

Employees or consumers who have a dispute with a company may have a hard time finding a lawyer to take their case, he added, and may be subjected to the delays of an overburdened judiciary.

Schwartz also took issue with characterizing contractual arbitration clauses as forced, especially when it comes to consumers.

“In most instances, it’s not really forced,” he said. A consumer looking to buy phone services, for example, can choose a company that does not require their users to agree to such a provision — or they can opt out altogether.

However, Schwartz said he would support federal regulation of arbitration clauses in employment contracts related to discrimination based on age, race, military service or other factors.

“Carefully drawn rules should regulate such contracts,” he argued.

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton appeared to back Schwartz’s comments about the cost and efficiency of private arbitration compared with litigation, pointing to the witness’s claims that “claimants tend to do just as well” in arbitration as they do in court.

Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn said that, while she supported the 2022 bill blocking sexual harassment and assault claims from forced arbitration, she was hesitant to get behind any legislation that would tack on additional exemptions.

“I think we have to be very careful,” she said.

Gilles, meanwhile, pushed back on opposition to expanding protections against arbitration clauses.

“Let’s not pretend that getting rid of forced arbitration means that everybody’s going to walk into court and get a check,” she said. Gilles pointed out that in court the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff to prove a company’s wrongdoing.

“You have to plead your case in a way that shows there’s an actual there there,” she argued.

Under forced arbitration, companies are allowed to pick which third-party mediator oversees a dispute, Gillies said. That allows firms to select arbitrators who are likely to rule against the claimant.

“We’re talking about systems that were created by companies and look exactly like what a company would create,” she said, “a system that protects them and doesn’t protect the rest of us.”

Durbin rejected the argument that private arbitration is cheaper and easier for employees.

“If that’s all true, then why is it forced?” he said.

The push against forced arbitration was further driven home by Joanne Grace, an Ohio nurse who said her hospital network eliminated her position in an effort to replace her with a younger employee, said her former employer stole “my voice, my rights and even my dignity.”

Grace contended that she was railroaded into an arbitration process despite never consenting to such a provision. Calling the process “rigged,” she argued that forced arbitration “empowers companies to violate the law while hurting nurses and patients.”

“Arbitration is a means not to change anything, but to hide everything,” she said.

Carlson told lawmakers she hoped policy discussions about forced arbitration would change the culture around the practice, which she said was never intended to be used to litigate “human rights violations” but rather as a tool to resolve disputes between businesses without involving the courts.

“Changing culture in the most hyper political time in our generation,” she said, “is more difficult than passing bipartisan legislation.”

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss
Categories / Government, National, Politics

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...