First Page
175
Last Page
210
Document Type
Comment
Abstract
This note argues that it is in the best interest of sexual harassment victims and the state of Indiana to not follow suit in passing legislation that prohibits employers from requiring mandatory arbitration in sexual harassment cases. This is based on an analysis of the potential factors underlying Indiana’s current lack of legislative movement, the weight of the arguments for and against mandatory arbitration, and consideration of the preemption issues surrounding state laws banning mandatory arbitration. Part II sets the foundation for this note by laying out the most pertinent parts of the FAA and analyzing how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this statute—specifically within the employment context. Part III looks at the development of the #MeToo movement and how it influenced a wave of legislative action at the state level. Part IV narrows the focus by looking at Indiana’s current stance on mandatory arbitration agreements based on both statutory and case law. Finally, Part V argues that it is in the best interest of both sexual harassment victims and Indiana for the state to refrain from passing legislation that bans the enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context for cases of sexual harassment. This argument is based on an analysis of the pros and cons of such legislation, particularly focusing on contradicting the #MeToo movement’s lead arguments in favor of such legislation, and the undeniable barrier to such legislation regarding preemption under the FAA.
Recommended Citation
Jonathan Cisneros,
Indiana in the Midst of #MeToo: The Argument for Enforcing Arbitration in Sexual Harassment Claims,
22 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J.
175
(2022)
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol22/iss1/6
