Disarming Employees: How American Employers are Using Mandatory Arbitration to Deprive Workers of Legal Protection

Jean R. Sternlight, Director of the Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution and Michael and Sonja Saltman Professor of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law, has authored Disarming Employees: How American Employers are Using Mandatory Arbitration to Deprive Workers of Legal Protection, Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 80, 2015, Forthcoming. In her article, Professor Sternlight analyzes the effect of mandatory arbitration clauses in the employment context.

Here is the abstract:

Employers’ imposition of mandatory arbitration constricts employees’ access to justice. The twenty percent of the American workforce covered by mandatory arbitration clauses file just 2,000 arbitration claims annually, a miniscule number even compared to the small number of employees who litigate claims individually or as part of a class action. Exploring how mandatory arbitration prevents employees from enforcing their rights the Article shows employees covered by mandatory arbitration clauses (1) win far less frequently and far less money than employees who litigate; (2) have a harder time obtaining legal representation; (3) are often precluded from participating in class, collective or sometimes even group claims; and (4) do not fare well pro se in arbitration. Noting employers’ use of mandatory arbitration is likely increasing, the Article urges Congress to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act both to protect individual employees and also to ensure employment laws are enforced.

This and other scholarly papers authored by Professor Sternlight may be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network.

Photo credit: Hanna- / Foter / CC BY-SA