#MeToo – Is Mandatory Arbitration On The Chopping Block?

18 December 2017 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Paul R. Monsees

On an almost daily basis, the news is filled with reported allegations of harassment by news anchors, Hollywood titans, Senate candidates, sitting congressmen, celebrity chefs, network executives and even the president. The coverage includes large settlements, mishandled investigations and more. Employer concerns have been elevated from the HR department to the boardroom as compliance programs receive greater scrutiny.

The focus on these allegations, some of which are from long ago, has included trying to understand why some victims did not come forward sooner. In addition to discussing the power differential between the accused and the accusers and the victims’ fears of retaliation, there is renewed attention on mandatory arbitration clauses in employment relationships.

For example, Congress introduced a bill early this year, the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2017, proposing that pre-dispute arbitration agreements like those commonly included in employment agreements or handbooks be unenforceable for employment, civil rights and some other claims. That bill did not generate much traction. However, after the recent spate of high-profile sexual misconduct allegations, a bipartisan group in the House and Senate including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, and Lindsay Graham, R-SC, has recently introduced legislation focused on arbitration agreements and their adverse impact on bringing sex harassment and discrimination claims to light.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act would essentially nullify mandatory employment arbitration for gender-based harassment and discrimination claims. Gillibrand characterized mandatory arbitration as requiring the accuser to “go into a secret meeting with their employer and try to work out some kind of deal that really only protects the predator. They are forbidden from talking about what happened and then they are expected to keep doing their job as if nothing happened to them.”

Those are strong words and come on the heels of a recent report that more than 50 percent of U.S. workers are subject to mandatory arbitration provisions. This is not the only legislative endeavor seeking to release employees of obligations to limit the disclosure of information relating to sex harassment claims. As we reported, the Pennsylvania legislature introduced a bill to limit restrictions of employment-based confidentiality agreements and permit the disclosure of certain types of information about sexual misconduct. It is very likely that there will be other such efforts at the state and federal level.  While it is too early to tell the fate of the new federal proposal, Graham has asked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to be supportive. What will the Chamber do?

In the meantime, what should employers do about arbitration? Properly drafted arbitration agreements are clearly enforceable in the employment context and we highly recommend that all employers consider the pros and cons of including arbitration clauses in their employment-related agreements. While  such clauses do not guarantee that a company will be immune from substantial damages awards, arbitration agreements provide the benefit of lower dispute costs, quicker resolution and, generally, non-public airing of employment-related disputes.Of course, at this time, companies should factor in the potential adverse publicity of enforcing arbitration confidentiality provisions.

Pre-dispute arbitration clauses also apply to a broad range of employment-related disputes, most particularly terminations.

Even in this highly charged atmosphere, it is likely to be a heavy lift for Congress to ban arbitration of sex-based harassment claims, but we will watch this closely and report on future developments.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ