Compulsory Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses in the Employment Context after EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps

Authors

Maria Wusinich

Document Type

Article

Abstract

In EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, decided in 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals aligned its view with its sister circuits and with the Supreme Court regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements in employment discrimination cases. The court held that an employee's agreement to arbitrate a claim arising under federal anti-discrimination law is enforceable. At first glance, it would appear that as far as the judicial branch is concerned, the longstanding issue of the validity of mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context is now settled. This article, in contrast, posits that the courts will be called to revisit this issue as it becomes more apparent that compelled arbitration is not an appropriate method for resolving employment discrimination claims, and that enforcing agreements to arbitrate such claims undermines the goals of the anti-discrimination statutes found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the 1964 CRA) and the 1991 Civil Rights Act (the 1991 CRA). Likewise, albeit less obviously, enforcing compulsory pre-dispute arbitration clauses also contravene the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Recommended Citation

Maria Wusinich, Compulsory Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses in the Employment Context after EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps , 5 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. Iss. 1 (2004)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol5/iss1/2