About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

17 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 131 (1996)
Mandatory Arbitration: Alternative Dispute Resolution or Coercive Dispute Suppression

handle is hein.journals/berkjemp17 and id is 137 raw text is: Mandatory Arbitration: Alternative Dispute Resolution or Coercive Dispute Suppression? Sharona Hoffman* The enforceability of mandatory arbitration policies contained in em- ployment contracts between employees and their direct employers remains an open question, even after the Supreme Court's 1991 decision in Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson Lane Corp. While Gilmer gave effect to a mandatory arbitration clause in a contract between a securities broker and his licens- ing exchange, the Court noted that the contract at issue was not an ordinary employment contract between employer and employee. The Court declined to decide whether arbitration agreements in ordinary employment contracts are per se enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act or whether these provisions are exempt from the Act and therefore subject to closer judicial scrutiny. Sharona Hoffman argues that arbitration provisions in ordinary em- ployment contracts are beyond the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, a conclusion consistent with the approach of the majority of courts of appeal which have considered this issue. To demonstrate the continuing development of the law governing the enforcement of mandatory arbitration policies, the author details a recent case in which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission challenged and successfully enjoined enforcement of a mandatory arbitration policy. The arbitration policy was vulnerable to attack because its provisions so clearly favored the employer and because pre-existing employees were forced to choose between keeping their jobs or prospectively agreeing to arbitrate nearly all disputes under the terms of the employer's arbitration policy. Hoffman concludes that while voluntary alternative dispute resolution schemes are enforceable, mandatory arbitration policies unilaterally im- posed by employers upon employees may be voidable under both statutory law and the common law of contracts. * B.A. Wellesley College 1985; J.D., Harvard Law School 1988. Ms. Hoffiman is a Senior Trial Attorney in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Houston District Office and an adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law. The views expressed in this article represent the personal views and opinions of its author and are not intended to represent the views of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any other United States governmental agency. © Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Volume 17, No. 1, 1996.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most