Drafting and Enforcing Compulsory Agreements to Arbitrate Employment Disputes

andbecauseitconcludedthat"congressintendedtoprotectadeaclaimantsfromthe elected to pursue his grievance to final arbitration was bound by the arbitrator's decision and underthesecuritiesact.58 13 incourt,thecourtmaydeclinetoenforcetheagreement.137 itreasonedthatthesamesocialpolicies theunitedstatessupreme supremecourtheldthatclaimsundertheantifraudprovisionsofthesecuritiesexchange 395 138 thecourtheldthatthe"dutytoenforcearbitrationagreementsisnotdiminishedwhena 94 infederalcourttheemployeeisnotseekingreviewofthearbitrator'sdecision.rather,the v. berthianume, 259 n.w.2d 904 (minn. 1977) (stating that only when a court finds that the arbitrator has id. at 640 conclusion iiofthisarticlewillsetforththeprimarydecisionsoftheunitedstatessupremecourt id. at 1539-40 drafting and enforcing compulsory thesupremecourtdeclinedthe thecourtdismissedgardner-denver'sargumentthatallowinganemployeetopursue counterclaims,includingcausesofactionundertheshermanact.34 americanswithdisabilitiesactclaimagainsthisemployerwhocontendedthatsuchclaims writtenopinions,whichaccordingtogilmerwouldresultinalackofpublicknowledge federalarbitrationact,"standingalone,thereforemandatesenforcementofagreementsto u.s. 614, 628 (1985)). 159 miningwhethertoenforcearbitrationagreementsofemploymentdisputes.whenattempting 11 districtofpuertoricounderthefederalarbitrationact,seekinganordertocompelarbitra- bales, supra note 2, at 607-08 (citing williams v. katten, muchin & zavis, 83 f. supp. 1430, 1439-40 compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes in holding that the employee's exemption status under � 1 of the faa preempted the enforcement of the v. adams,99 thus,thecourtheldthatanemployee'sresortto inthecontextofindividualemploymentcontracts,ithasbeenlesswillingtorestrictthe however,aminorityofcourtshaveheldthatarbitrationagreementsthatdo theemployeecontendedthatan discoveryofdocumentsanddepositionstopreparethecase,andrequireawritten implementingemploymentarbitrationsystems,haveinsertedclausesthatlimitarbitrators' relyingonitspriordecisionsinthemitsubishi b. the mitsubishi trilogy arbitratestatutoryclaims."52 arisingbetweenhimandinterstatethatwasrequiredtobearbitratedbytherulesofthenew id. at 479, 486. (1999)). 47 forprevailingplaintiffs,"thecourtheldthattheagreementwasunenforceable.150 68 alexander'sclaimproceededtoarbitration, id. (citing halligan v. piper jaffray, inc., 183 f.3d 197 (2d cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 s. ct. 1286 thatusinganorganizedsystemofarbitrationwilladdressmanysuchconcernsraisedby betweentheadea'spurposeoffurtheringimportantsocialpoliciesandenforcingagree- 71 inreachingitsdecision,thecourtobserved corp.,3 tion, and warned that where the contract conflicted with the rights accorded by statute, the onappeal,theemployeesarguedthataprovisioninthearbitration avoidthepotentialdismantlingofanarbitrationagreement,itbehoovesemployerstoex- thedistrictcourt ties,thatarenotalreadycoveredintheagreement."117 400 ofsuchaclaimtothedefendantisnotnecessarilyunfairorotherwiseunconscionable.but id. inwilliams v. katten, muchin & zavis,thearbitrationagreementatissueprovided 64 alexander,an rightsandprocedurescommontociviltrials,suchasdiscovery,compulsoryprocess,cross- courtastothesecuritiesactclaims.59 401 costsofthearbitration,unliketheagreementingreen treethatwassilentastocosts.147 128 of contractual disputes, make arbitration a comparatively inappropriate forum for the final second,thecourtstatedthatthearbitrationingardner-denver fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 108 in response to gilmer's complaint, interstate filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 39 9 u.s.c. � 1 (2006). section 1 of the act excludes from the act's coverage "contracts of employment of furthermore,thecourtnotedthat arbitrateemploymentdisputesdespitetheemployee'sexemptionstatusundersection1of position that arbitration is deficient because arbitrators often will not issue written opinions, arbitralforum,butheldthatthepartyseekingtoinvalidatetheagreementbearstheburden antssuchasgilmerafairopportunitytopresenttheirclaims.89 moore, arbitration of employment disputes � drafting enforceable pre-dispute agreements, 32 creighton id. (quoting mitsubishi motors corp. v. soler chrysler-plymouth, inc., 473 u.s. 614, 628 (1985)). orconveyedtoemployeesin imposed a heightened waiver requirement when title vii 38 id. at 56-57. tionofthedisputepursuanttothesalesagreement.33 531 u.s. 79 (2000). 385 404 likelihoodofincurringthecostsandthattheirclaimsareunsuitableforarbitration.green andordersineachcase.156 may 4, 1999) (holding that the arbitration clause in an employee handbook which was not distinct from arbitrationagreementscontainedinemployeehandbooks133 70 see, e.g., morrison v. circuit city stores, inc., 317 f.3d 646, 673, n.16 (6th cir. 2003) (concluding that arbitrationassoonaspossibletoavoidthepossibilityofwaiver.170 handbook, the better practice is to present the arbitration provision in a separate document to ensure that inadditiontoutilizingaprofessionalarbitrationorganization,theconcernoverarbitra- that the eeoc was also bound by the arbitration agreement between waffle house and the 14 regarding limited discovery in arbitration and observing that because defendant represented in its appellate id. while moore also observes that some courts have enforced arbitration provisions included in adisputearose,anarbitratorwastobechosenaccordingtoaaarules.thecourt 93 tionsinsurethatemployeestatutoryrightsaremaintainedinthearbitralforum,allow asthecourtscontinuetoaddressarbitrationofemploymentdisputes,itappearsthat "[t]he faa does not mention enforcement by public agencies; it ensures the enforceability 79 right; this defeats the employee argument that his/her right to a jury trial was "unknowingly" ofthedevelopmentofthelaw."91 id. see, e.g., marie v. allied home mortg. corp., 402 f.3d 1 (1st cir. 2005) (holding that an employer ploymentcontractswereexemptfromcoverageunderthefaa.incircuit city stores, inc. followinggreen id. (internal citation omitted). inwaffle house,theemployercontended costscouldprecludealitigantfromeffectivelyvindicatinghisorherstatutoryrightsinan precluded from suing gardner-denver under title vii.16 12 accord- moore, supra note 6, at 1526 (citing john paul motley, compulsory arbitration agreements in em- rodriguez, 490 u.s. at 481 (quoting mitsubishi motors corp. v. soler chrysler-plymouth, inc., 473 ofanarbitrationagreement,enforceablepursuanttothefaa."80 90 id. at 224 (internal citation omitted). 25 [i]nthenon-unioncontext,theamericanarbitrationassociation(aaa)andthe the employee to help select from several potential arbitrators, provide sufficient itemphasizedthatthearbitrator'sroleistoef- 141 asback-pay,reinstatementandmoneydamages.115 employeeisassertingastatutoryrightindependentofthearbitrationprocess.23 finally,itheldthat"[h]avingmadethebargaintoarbitrate, first options of chicago, inc. v. kaplan, 514 u.s. 938, 944 (1995). ployment contracts from gardner-denver to austin: the legal uncertainty and why employers should function.'"86 500 u.s. 20 (1991). itstatedthat"[t]he`liberal id. gilmer, 500 u.s. at 23. shouldhavebeenarbitratedunderthetermsofacollectivebargainingagreement.107 act and treble damage claims under the racketeer influenced and corrupt organizationsact bindingarbitration.83 iii. thearbitralprocesstoenforcecontractualrightsunderthecollectivebargainingagreement 52 agreement was sufficiently broad to encompass a statutory claim arising under the ada.108 investigation); see also jin v. metro. life ins. co., no. 95 civ 4427, 2000 u.s. dist. lexis 4139 (s.d.n.y. standard.ingambardella v. pentec, inc.,146 suchatimeperiodmuststillbereasonable."125 139 id. at 613 see generally, john j. kircher & christine m. wiseman, punitive damages: law and practice adeaclaim.74 helen johnson alford is a senior member of the law firm of id. isabriefsummaryoftheprimarydecisionsofthesupremecourtregardingarbitrationof however,issuesofpublicpolicyand upheldthisprocedureagainstanemployee'sclaimofbias.162 registrationapplication,aswellasthefederalarbitrationact.75 82 id. at 226-27. act.45 id. at 75. see campbell v. gen. dynamics gov't. sys. corp., 407 f.3d 546 (1st cir. 2005) (holding that employer federalagencythatoverseestherightsandinterestsofthepublic.119 134 itshouldbe 32 alexander subsequently filed a title vii claim against gardner-denver in the united id. at 78, n.1. inggilmer,thefourthcircuitheldthatthearbitrationprovisioninthecollectivebargaining id. 88 heldtoitunlesscongressitselfhasevincedanintentiontoprecludeawaiverofjudicial atthetime itrecognizedtheabilityofanemployerand thecourtreiteratedthat tion was insufficient, stating that gilmer had failed to make a showing that the discovery "nothinginthestatuteauthorizesacourttocompelarbitrationofanyissues,orbyanypar- ane-mail,134 (rico)weresubjecttobindingarbitrationpursuanttothefederalarbitrationact.shearson, 161 tionunderthefaa,ordinaryprinciplesofstatecontractlawapply.128 remediesforthestatutoryrightsatissue."82 thedistrictcourt id. 166 federation of defense & corporate counsel and chair of the assetforthabove,gilmerraisedseveralchallengestothearbitrationprocessitself, a brokerage firm registered with the securities and exchange commission, entered into two that the discovery provided for by the nyse rules would prove insufficient to allow claim- fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 60 id. at 26 (quoting moses h. cone mem'l hosp. v. mercury constr. corp., 460 u.s. 1, 24 (1983)). 137 questions of substantive rights secured by title vii.22 g. require the arbitrator to issue written awards 169 id. at 43. 7 95 manyfederalemploymentantidiscriminationstatutes,aswellasmoststatecommon courtheldthatanagreementtoarbitrateunderthefaawasenforceabledespitethefact unresolved.inwright v. universal maritime service corp.,106 ofprivateagreementstoarbitrate,butotherwisedoesnotpurporttoplaceanyrestriction id. (quoting mitsubishi, 473 u.s. at 628). cernwhich`requiresthatwerigorouslyenforceagreementstoarbitrate.' "37 deemedtheagreementsunenforceable."142 trast, in filing a lawsuit under title vii, an employee asserts independent statutory rights theunitedstatescourtofappealsforthefourthcircuit acknowledgedthreeimportantdistinctions.95 allclaimsofviolationsoflaw,whetherintort,contract,statutory(includingdiscrimination with gilmer's position that arbitration is deficient because arbitrators often will not issue employees'complaint.123 findingnothinginthestatutorytext,legislative id. at 79. initsmotion,interstaterelieduponthearbitrationagreementingilmer's employee handbooks, and proposes an alternative method for including such provisions in the employee 76 id. id. at 27. id. at 226. unitedstatessupremecourtingilmerheldthattheprovisionsofthefaa,"manifesta haveexaminedarbitrationagreementswhichlimittheamountortypesofremedieshave inoctober 389 a provision that the parties would bear their own costs, expenses, and fees was unenforceable); spinetti 170 id. (internal citation omitted). id. 142 tivelawtowould-becomplainants,'andassuch,theyare`faroutofstepwithourcurrent sincethewilkodecision,quotingthefollowinglanguagefrommitsubishi: "`byagreeing opportunitytodeterminewhethergilmer hadoverruledgardner-denver.wrightbroughtan i. arbitrator must be neutral implementing enforceable agreements, 47 baylor l. rev. 591, 594 (1995). 394 135 inc.114 concomitant waiver of an employee's right to access a judicial forum). id. at 626. alsodisagreedwithgardner-denver'sassertionthattopermitanemployeetoresortto "[w]herethecollective-bargainingagreementcontainsanondiscriminationclausesimilar employees,reasoningthat"aprovisionlimitingthetimetobringaclaimorprovidenotice itfurtherheldthat"havingmadethebargaintoarbitrate,thepartyshouldbe oneaspectoftheincreaseduseofarbitrationhasrecentlyengenderedgreaterscrutiny evidencethatitwouldpayupfrontforthecostsincurredinarbitratingtheemployee'sclaims, commission (eeoc) from pursuing victim-specificadabased suit for judicial relief, such 164 waiverofajudicialforum."76 id. id. at 40. 113 id. however,becausetheagreementrequiredthepartiestopay seekstovindicatehiscontractualrightunderacollective-bargainingagreement.bycon- k. consider an express waiver of a trial by jury indeed,thecourtshaverefusedtoenforcecompulsory 147 customeragreementwithasecuritiesbroker,whichincludedanarbitrationclausestating thesimplicity,informality,andexpeditionofarbitration.'"90 thecompanyandtheunionastothemeaningandapplicationoftheprovisionsofthis that the employer has waived the right to arbitrate; however, the employer should request resolution of rights created by title vii."25 ments."77 10 anemployeetobindthemselvestoanarbitrationagreement,butnottheabilitytobinda awardsbeinwritingandreasonedthatjudicialopinionsaddressingadeaclaimswould 33 "`solongastheprospectivelitiganteffectivelymayvindicatehisorherstatutorycauseof trilogy,thecourtstatedthat"[i]tisbynowclearthatstatutoryclaimsmaybethesubject disputes,thearbitrationagreementshouldcontainlanguagethattheagreementencompasses later,alexander'semploymentwasterminated,andhewasinformedthathewasbeing tionprovided,inpart,thatgilmer"agreedtoarbitrateanydispute,claimorcontroversy" claimsarisingundertheexchangeactarenotsubjectto miningwhethertheemployerhaswaiveditsrighttoarbitrate,thecourtswillconsidersuch bales, supra note 2, at 609. compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes mentstoarbitrateagediscriminationclaims.84 146 furtherheldthat"[b]yagreeingtoarbitrateastatutoryclaim,apartydoesnotforgothe contrasttogardner-denver,gilmer was decided under the faa, which reflected a "`liberal addresstheenforceabilityofaprovisiontoarbitratestatutoryclaims,butratheraddressed courtprecedent,theheightenedstandardofrequiringtheagreementtobe`knowing'should arbitrationagreementcoversthedisputebetweentheparties.127 isdistinguishablebecauseitoccurredinthecollectivebargainingcontextwheretheclaim- id. at 246. see also parilla v. iap worldwide servs. vi, inc., 368 f.3d 269 (3d. cir. 2004) (holding that 66 36 employmentmatters. thecourtnotedthatthenyserulesrequirethatallarbitrationawardsbe the court ofappeals affirmed the district id. at 27-28. methodofweakeningtheprotectionsaffordedinthesubstantivelawtowould-becomplain- 396 thecourtrelied id. 102 gilmer haverefusedtoinvalidateagreementstoarbitratebecausethediscoveryprovided and securities exchange act claims; however, it denied the motion as to the rico claim, id. at 30. thedistrictcourtorderedalltheclaimstobesubmittedtoarbitrationexceptforthose alternative dispute resolution section. as an active member therefore,thepartiesshouldrequirethearbitratortoproducethorough,writtenopinions inthelate1980's,theunitedstatessupremecourtrecognizedarbitrationofstatutory onanonparty'schoiceofajudicialforum."118 heldthatclaimsarisingundertheshermanactforallegedviolationsofanti-trustlawwhen 58 18 bargainingagreementandveryfewhavecompelledtheemployeetoarbitrate.112 partyboundbyanagreementraisesaclaimfoundedonstatutoryrights."51 antswererepresentedbyaunioninarbitrationproceedings.97 120 courtfurtherstatedthat"[t]otheextentthatwilkorestedonsuspicionofarbitrationasa 136 authoritytoawardpunitivedamages.141 thecourtalsodismissedgilmer'sargumentthatthediscoveryallowedinarbitration 296 f. supp. 2d 462, 468 (s.d.n.y. 2003). alabama "super lawyer" in 2008. id. thecourtingilmerrejectedtheargumentthatthediscoveryprovidedforinarbitra- agreementwillbeenforced.135 see rosenberg v. merrill lynch, pierce, fenner & smith, inc., 170 f.3d 1 (1st cir. 1999) (refusing to id. at 617-18. arbitrationpursuanttothearbitrationclause. toarbitrateemployment-relateddisputesdoesnotbartheequalemploymentopportunity laude in 1982, she has practiced in mobile, alabama for 26 id. (internal citation omitted). mentdisputesonseveraloccasions.whilethecourthasenforcedarbitrationagreements thecourtfurtherexpressedconcernsthatthefact enforcementoftheagreementinthosecases."120 uponthesamefootingasothercontracts."79 ants,ithasfallenfaroutofstepwithourcurrentstrongendorsementofthefederalstatutes centerforpublicresources(cpr)areavailabletonominateproposedarbitrators. 53 (declaring that arbitration awards can be vacated if they are in manifest disregard of the law), and minnesota moore, supra note 6, at 1532. theunitedstatessupremecourtgrantedcertiorariandreversed 122 since1974,theunitedstatessupremecourthasaddressedthearbitrationofemploy- examination,andtestimonyunderoath,areoften"severelylimitedorunavailable."27 41 clearly exceeded his powers under the agreement must a court vacate the award)). thecourtheldthatwhileaunionmaywaivecertainstatutory id. at 49-50. sentedtoemployeesinaseparatedocumentandexplainedtobothemployeesandapplicants, incontrastto circuit city is significant. the court's decision should cause even broader use of arbitra- alford, clausen & mcdonald, llc in mobile, alabama. a agreements to arbitrate tion,theamountoflitigationthathastakenplace,andpossibleprejudicetotheemployee. moore, supra note 6, at 1528 (citing motley, supra note 29, at 696). thecourtofappealsforthefourthcircuitreversedthedistrict couldbefurtheredbyresorttoanarbitralasopposedtoajudicialforum.85 391 deniedinterstate'smotionbasedonthesupremecourt'sdecisioningardner-denver 106 101 inholdingthattheexchangeactandricoclaimsweresubjecttobindingarbitration,the ismorelimitedthaninthefederalcourts,statingthatgilmerhadfailedtomakeashowing 144 by business alabama as an outstanding woman in business in 2005 and selected as an id. id. at 625 (quoting moses h. cone mem. hosp. v. mercury constr. corp., 460 u.s. 1, 24, 25 n.2 representative."71 id. thecourtshavehadtoaddressanumberofissuesnotanalyzedingilmerwhendeter- exemptedcontractsofemploymentoftransportationworkersfromthefaa'scoverage.102 in the first of claimsinthreecasesthathavebecomeknownasthemitsubishitrilogy.29 tree,thecourtheldthatapartywhoresistsarbitration,duetoclaimsofsteeparbitration statutes)orcommonlaw."138 brief "that informal discovery will be available at arbitration, there appears to be no point at issue here"). 61 thefailuretoincludeanexpressjurywaivertypicallydoesnotinvalidateanarbitration a discrimination claim against their former employer in federal court, and the employer filed solerrespondedandassertedseveral a. allow the employee to file administrative claims id. at 1539. id. 156 59 ciesbetweengilmerandgardner-denver,butdeclinedtoconsidertheapplicabilityofthe 2005) (holding that arbitration agreement that failed to include an express jury waiver was unenforce- oftransportationworkers,orappliedtoemploymentcontractsasawhole.101 id. rightswereimplicatedinanarbitrationagreement.moorestatesthat"[a]lthoughthedeci- thecourtofappealsagreedwiththe federalarbitrationact.67 besubjecttoarbitration."136 andthatonlyemploymentcontractsoftransportationworkersareexempt.104 397 toarbitrateastatutoryclaim,apartydoesnotforgothesubstantiverightsaffordedbythe indistinguishinggilmerfromgardner-denver,thecourt id. at 242 andthat"generalizedattacksonarbitration`rest 22 17 a. arbitration of employment disputes in the collective bargaining context arbitrationagreementcouldbedeemedunenforceable.mooresuggeststhatinorder"to arbitrationofadeaclaims,thesupremecourtheldthatgilmer'sclaimwassubjectto thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotiontocompelastothemcmahons'statelawclaims thestatutorytextorlegislativehistorytothecontrary,thecourtheldthatthemcmahons' employersshouldnotincludesimilarnoticeprovisionsinthe thecourtheldthattheagreementwasenforceable. sionhasbeenwidelycriticizedformisinterpretingbothcongressionalintentandsupreme 140 thethirddecisioninthe id. at 53-54. onthefollowinglanguagefromitspriordecisioninmitsubishiinsupportofitsdecision: thecourtfurtherstatedthatthismandatemaybeoverridden holdingthatthe"importantfederalpoliciesinherentintheenforcementofricobythe gilmer v. interstate/johnson lane corp., 500 u.s. 20, 31 (1991). thejudicialforumwouldunderminetheemployer'sincentivetoarbitrate.itreasonedthat suggests that explicit references to statutory claims will require arbitration); carson v. giant food, inc., moore, supra note 6; bales, supra note 2. failed to provide minimally sufficient notice of the contractual nature of an e-mailed policy and of the shouldnotbeincluded,andmostconservatively,suchagreementsshouldexplicitlystate gilmer v. interstate/johnson lane corp., 500 u.s. 20, 31 (1991). byacontrarycongressionalmandatededuciblefromthestatute'stextorlegislativehis- 42 168 failuretoincludeanexpressjurywaiverdoesnotnecessarilydoomanarbitrationagreement, law,includingclaimsunderthesecuritiesactof1934.57 id. administrativereview.121 id. at 39. forthesoutherndistrictofnewyork,allegingthatshearsonhadviolatedthesecurities id. at 245. a group of former employees filed will be allowed to file a charge of discrimination, the agreement should specifi- 80 id. id. at 478. ingilmer v. interstate/johnson lane corp.,65 id. at 31-32. increasethelikelihoodthattheagreementwillbeenforced. tors'biascanbeovercomebyspecifyingintheagreementthatthearbitratorwillbeneutral.160 apr. 4, 2000) (holding that employer waived its right to arbitration by waiting to file its motion to compel 51 ganizationarisingoutoftheemploymentorterminationofemploymentofsuchregistered toarbitrate,aparty`tradestheproceduresandopportunityforreviewofthecourtroomfor thefederalarbitrationact.inthatcase,solerachrysler-mitsubishidealerinpuertorico, itnotedthatthenyserulesrequirethatallarbitration 534 u.s. 279 (2002). 145 ofrelevancetothecase,nyserule347providedforarbitration 30 d. agreement should include the specific claims to be arbitrated lawprescribesthatapartyispresumedtohaveknowledgeofasignedcontract,andthat [t]heproceduressetforthintherulesoforganized,respectedarbitrationorganiza- compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes thearbitrationprocess.first,itdisagreedwithgilmer'sargumentthatarbitrationpanels however,asbalessuggests,"[t]oensureenforcement,arbitration 34 supremecourtobservedthatthefederalarbitrationact"wasintendedtoreversecenturies 173 490 u.s. 477 (1989). 114 ofjudicialhostilitytoarbitrationagreementsbyplacingarbitrationagreementsuponthe id. at 225-26 (internal citations omitted). 9 thefederalpolicyagainstdiscriminatoryemploymentpracticescanbestbeaccommodated precludeawaiverofjudicialremediesforthestatutoryrightsatissue.53 id. iv. be severed and the remaining provisions of the agreement held enforceable). vent litigation; however, it declined to reach the question whether such a waiver would be itspreviousholdingingardner-denver,thecourtstatedthat"[t]hereisnoreasontodepart thesupremecourtreversed.inreachingitsdecision,thecourtrecognizedtheinconsisten- provided for by the nyse rules would prove insufficient to allow claimants such as gilmer 119 practices, an inability to obtain effective appellate review and a "stifling of the development overturnarbitrationdecisionswheretherewasevidentpartialityorcorruptioninthearbitra- f. employers should consider paying for arbitration thatpursuanttowilko v. swan,47 agreementfurtherprovidedthateachpartywouldpayitsownlegalfees.148 the plaintiff brought a title vii claim against her theclaimsthataresubjecttoarbitrationsothatnopotentiallegaldisputecanfallthrough 532 u.s. 105 (2001). able). itfailstoputtheemployeeonnoticethatheorsheiswaivingtherighttopursueaclaim thecourtstatedthat"byagreeingtoarbitrate,a 118 toaidinmeetingthisstandard,moorestatesthatthearbitrationpolicyshouldbepre- furthermore,iftheagreementisambiguouslyphrasedsuchthat mostcourtsthathaveaddressedthesameissuesincegardner-denver and third,thecourtnotedthatin supremecourtreferredingilmer."166 21 thatallarbitrationawardsbeinwritingcanaddressthisconcern.inanyevent,anarbitrator's 1 inmakingthisdetermina- compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes iftheemployeeattemptstobringaclaimincourtratherthanproceedingtoarbitration, 28 monlawandhadbeenadoptedbyamericancourts,andtoplacearbitrationagreements id. however,theapparentinconsistenciesbetweengilmer andgardner-denver remain fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 111 finding process in arbitration usually is not as complete as judicial fact finding; the record in 1974, the united states supreme court first addressed the arbitration of statutory ofthelaw."153 plicitlystateinadvancethatarbitrator'sfeeswillbeborneexclusivelybytheemployer."151 see gilbert v. fox & roach, l.p., no. 05-668, 2005 u.s. dist. lexis 22506, at *8 (d.n.j. sept. 23, 63 employmentdiscriminationclaimsinalexander v. gardner-denver co.7 arbitration until four years after the motion deadline contained in the court's scheduling order and after the 163 insurance co. of america v. lai,130 amotiontocompelarbitration.thedistrictcourtcompelledarbitrationanddismissedthe otherwise,acourtmayconsiderthefactthatnowrittendecision shearson, 482 u.s. at 224. thatanycontroversies"relatingtoaccounts"wouldbesubmittedtobindingarbitration.56 85 for the first time, the court held that an employee heregistered therodriguezcourtacknowledgedthatitsviewsonarbitrationhadshifted id. at 26, 35. 27 98 (1983)). procedures ideally should specifically permit at least the types of discovery to which the therefore,"[t]oencompassall liberalfederalpolicyfavoringarbitration"171 124 153 with her employer were subject to arbitration). id. thewesterndistrictofnorthcarolina,allegingthatinterstatehaddischargedhimbe- favoringthismethodofresolvingdisputes."64 finally,gilmerarguedthatthecourt'sdecisioningardner-denver precludedarbitra- fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 392 tion); see also herko v. metro. life ins. co., 978 f. supp. 141 (w.d.n.y. 1997) (where employee claimed compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes be influenced by its perception of the fairness of the agreement.4 ingly,thecourtconcludedthat"thefederalpolicyfavoringarbitrationoflabordisputesand theada,andisdistinctfromanyrightconferredbythecollective-bargainingagreement."110 moorepointsoutthat"themajorityofcourtsthat agreement"and"anytroublearisingintheplant."11 asbalesobserves: id. at 245. itstatedthat"byagreeing actioninthearbitralforum,thestatutewillcontinuetoservebothitsremedialanddeterrent arbitratormustfollowtheagreement.26 provisionstatingthattheagreementisnotmeanttorestricttheabilityoftheemployeeto substantivelawestablishingandregulatingthedutytohonoranagreementtoarbitrate.'"36 moore, supra note 6, at 1536. id. at 223. mostcourtsthathaveaddressedthisissuesince id. at 31-32. afairopportunitytopresenttheirclaims.163 follow- statesdistrictcourtforthedistrictofcolorado,allegingthathisdischargeresultedfrom id. andheallegedinpartthathisdischargeresultedfromracialdiscrimination.13 473 u.s. 614 (1985). 40 see alexander v. gardner-denver co., 415 u.s. 36, 57-58 (1974). 78 the costs of the arbitration. the court recognized that in some cases significant arbitration compulsoryarbitration.48 historyorunderlyingpurposesoftheadeatoindicateacongressionalintenttopreclude alexander'spetitionforcertiorariandreversedthelowercourts.18 theunitedstatessupremecourtrelied ratherthanajudicial,forum."40 8 id. itfurtherobservedthat"wearewellpastthetimewhenjudicialsus- seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." id. at 30 (quoting rodriguet de quijas v. shearson/american express, inc., 490 u.s. 477, 481 ingreen tree financial corp.-alabama v. randolph,144 the agreement; however, the time period for bringing the claim or providing notice must be failure to include an express jury waiver in arbitration agreement did not invalidate the agreement). thecourtalsorefutedseveralchallengesmadebygilmeragainsttheadequacyof benefits for union members, an employee's right to be free of discriminatory practices under 57 24 id. moore, 32 supra note 6, at 1540. to title vii, and where arbitral procedures are fair and regular, arbitration may well produce id. at 26. tration.154 fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 employees.158 rather,itheldthatwright'sclaimarose"notoutofcontract,butoutof as a practical matter, usually there must be a significant delay before the courts will find adraftingerrorwhichinappropriatelyplacesrestrictionsonthetypesofclaimswhichmay 126 circuit city stores, 532 u.s. at 109. id. at 82, n.2. id. at 31. 388 theimpactof 123 thus,mooresuggeststhat"suchrestrictions 132 109 103 393 courtsareincreasinglyenforcingcompulsoryarbitrationagreementsofemployment gilmer, 500 u.s. at 33. federalpolicyfavoringarbitrationagreements.'"98 48 172 waiverofjudicialremediesforthestatutoryrightsatissue."41 j. discovery fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 tiontoresolveemploymentdisputes.moreover,somecourtshaveenforcedagreementsto 165 112 110 supreme court decisions regarding arbitration of employment disputes fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 inshearson/american express, inc. v. mcmahon,42 fromarticlesauthoredbyscotts.mooreandricharda.balesshouldbeconsidered.113 id. (quoting mitsubishi motors corp. v. soler chrysler-plymouth, inc., 473 u.s. 614, 628 (1985)). id. (internal citation omitted). 130 exchangeactandalsoallegingaricoclaim.44 onstatutoryrights."38 part 341 f.3d 256 (3d cir. 2003). exists is beneficial to the enforceability of the agreement.159 91 id. id. andanyemployeeoremployeesinvolved."12 file an administrative claim, or "simply avoid reference to agency charges and not attempt inkeepingwithitspriordecisioninmitsubishi motors, oftheopinion,almosteverycourtofappealstoaddresstheissueheldthatsection1only itheldthatthe does not constitute a waiver of his right to pursue a statutory cause of action under title vii draftenforceablepre-disputearbitrationagreementsofemploymentclaims.6 inthatcase,thecourtheldthatanagreementbetweenanemployerandanemployee 35 choose not to use pre-employment arbitration agreements, 51 vand. l. rev. 687, 695 (1998)). 99 107 id. at 478-79. v. swain,61 onitsdecisionsinthemitsubishi trilogywhenitupheldamandatoryarbitrationagree- thecourtofappeals.49 id. at 246 thecourtobservedthatthefederalarbitrationactwaspromulgatedto"reversethe 115 482 u.s. 220 (1987). mitsubishibroughtanactionagainstsolerintheunitedstatesdistrictcourtforthe 15 thecourtheldthatthenormalpresumptionofarbitrabilityofemploymentclaimsinthe [a] great number of the employee claims will be challenges under title vii, the non-unioncontextwouldnotapplytostatutoryclaimsinthecollectivebargainingcontext, thecourtofappealsofthetenth 69 id. tors.88 commonlawclaimsthataddressinherentfairnessincontractswillcontinuetobeusedto moses h. cone mem'l hosp. v. mercury constr. corp., 460 u.s. 1, 24-25 (1983). thecourt tree involved a dispute arising out of a borrower's mobile home financing agreement. it id. at 55. asdiscussedbelow,utilizingaprofessionalarbitrationorganizationwithrulesrequiring samefootingasothercontracts."50 id. thecourtdisagreedwithgilmer'sargumentthatthereisaninherentinconsistency ruled that alexander had been fired for just cause.14 customeragreementswiththemcmahons.theagreementsprovidedforarbitrationofany theissueofwhetherarbitrationofcontract-basedclaimsprecludedthesubsequentadjudica- id. at 617. themcmahons'claimspursuanttothecustomeragreementsandthefederalarbitration years. ms. alford is also a member of the bars of mississippi, 151 andheldthatonlya"clearandunmistakable"agreementtoarbitratewouldpossiblypre- moorestatesthat"[o]newayanarbitrationagreementmayloseitsenforceabilityisby 6 thedevelopmentofarbitrationasanalternativemeansofdisputeresolution."39 compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes 160 49 23 first,itnotedthatgardner-denver didnot significantly, the court held that while an arbitrator has the authority to 383 id. at 625-26 (quoting dean witter reynolds inc. v. byrd, 470 u.s. 213, 221 (1985)). moorealsonotesthatwhilethe thearbitrationatthetimethattheagreementispresentedtotheemployeetoensurethatthe regardforthefederalpolicyfavoringarbitration.'"173 id.; see also bales, supra note 2, at 617. moore, supra note 6, at 1538. thesecondcaseofthetrilogy,the enforceable,itisclearthatifaplaintiffmeetsherburdenofproofwithregardtocosts,the 43 includingarbitratorbias,inadequatediscovery,failuretoissuewrittenawardsandthefailure 31 thepetitionerssubsequentlysuedshearsonclaimingvariousviolationsofstateandfederal informality,andexpeditionofarbitration.'"164 92 barredfrompursuingtheactioninapublichearingorcourt,despitetheeeoc's 84 29 moore, supra note 6, at 1538 (citing first options of chicago, inc. v. kaplan, 514 u.s. 938, 942 (1995) 74 157 theregistrationapplica- causeofhisageinviolationoftheagediscriminationinemploymentact(adea).73 mitsubishi motors corp. v. soler chrysler-plymouth, inc., 473 u.s. 614, 628 (1985). 105 gilmerwassubsequentlydischargedin1987attheageofsixty-two.72 id. at 28 (quoting mitsubishi, 473 u.s. at 637). wasnotanemploymentdispute.however,thecourtshavefollowedthesupremecourt's 37 reversed, finding "nothing in the text, legislative history, or underlying purposes of the that the arbitrator's decision was to be "final and binding upon the company, the union, 525 u.s. 70 (1998). "onemethodistohavepartiesmutuallyagreetoanarbitratoraftertheemployeeclaim threeyears id. at 42. wasbarredfrompursuingadiscriminationclaiminfederalcourtbecauseanagreementto shearsonmovedtocompelarbitrationof id. at 51-52. moore, supra note 6, at 1536. withthisopinioninmind,theemployershouldeitherincludeaclauseinthearbitration hoffman v. aaron kamhi, inc., 927 f. supp. 640, 645 (s.d.n.y. 1996). arbitration.thedeterminationofwaiverusuallydependsontheparticularfactsofthecase. strongendorsementofthefederalstatutesfavoringthismethodofresolvingdisputes.'"172 infederalcourt.21 gilmer v. interstate/johnson lane corp., 500 u.s. 20, 25 (1991) (internal citation omitted). statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum.'"63 (1989)). id. at 626-27. befollowedtoinsureenforceability."131 israised.anothermethodistohaveathirdpartyselectalistofarbitrators,andallowthe nofurtherexplanationofthecontracttermsneedstobemadetothatparty.ininterpreting thecourtalsoreasonedthatthefaaprotectsagainstbiasbyprovidingthatcourtsmay i. todraftanenforceablecompulsoryarbitrationagreement,thefollowingsuggestions,taken notincludeanexpressjurywaiverareunenforceable.168 balesobservesthatsomeemployers,when substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, 83 circuit affirmed the district court's opinion.17 decisionanalyzingthematterunderapplicablelaw.hence,thatanorganizedsystem id. see sherry v. sisters of charity med. ctr., 1999 u.s. dist. lexis 6623, no. 98-cv-6151 (e.d.n.y. itsdecisioningardner-denver.93 500 u.s. 20 (1991). 148 b. do not include unreasonable notice provisions 133 218 f. supp. 2d 237 (d. conn. 2002). introduction agreement.167 and affirmed the court of appeals decision.60 submitted by the author on behalf of the fdcc alternative dispute resolution section. lawtorts,authorizepunitivedamageawards.140 167 thearbitrationclausefurtherprovided theagreementcontainedabroadarbitrationclausecovering"differencesarisingbetween filing an age discrimination charge with the equal employment opportunity commis- see, e.g., halligan v. piper jaffray, inc., 148 f.3d 197 (2d cir. 1998). 4 limited discovery was not grounds for finding arbitration agreement unenforceable where plaintiff failed waived.169 thedistrictcourthadbaseditsdecisiononthesupremecourt'spriorholdinginwilko court held that the employee was conclusively presumed to know the contract's contents and that disputes h. utilize a professional arbitration organization yorkstockexchange.70 reasonable.inalexander v. anthony international, l.p.,122 fectuatetheintentofthecontractingpartiesratherthantherequirementsofenactedlegisla- party`tradestheproceduresandopportunityforreviewofthecourtroomforthesimplicity, thesupremecourtheldthat"[i]nsubmittinghisgrievancetoarbitration,anemployee araciallydiscriminatoryemploymentpracticeinviolationoftheact.15 see palcko v. airborne express, inc., 372 f.3d 588 (3d cir. 2004) (holding that the district court erred mentdisputes.1 158 150 oneoftheargumentsagainstenforcementofarbitrationagreementsadvancedingilmer oritsterms.moreover,theemployershouldprovidetheemployeewiththerulesgoverning 121 86 despitethesupremecourt'sholdingthatordinarycontractprinciplesapply,atleast wasthatarbitratorswouldnotissuewrittenopinions.152 415 u.s. 36 (1974). 155 id. at 266. l. avoid waiver 50 association and chairs the workers' compensation commit- costs,bearstheburdenofshowingthelikelihoodofincurringthecostsandthattheirclaims enforcementofprivatecontractualarrangements:theactsimply`createsabodyoffederal that she was never provided with copies of the rules concerning the scope of the arbitration clause, the 75 challengearbitrationdisputesinthefuture.followingthesuggestionsinthisarticlewill 46 moreover,whendraftingtheagreement,employersshouldnotlimittheemployee'sright title vii cannot be prospectively waived.20 mentconcerningacivilrightsstatute.66 partiestostrikearbitratorsuntilonlyoneremains."161 arbitration agreement under washington state law). the court held that such enforcement did not contradict the clause should set forth "broadly, as well as specifically, "someofthemajor`open discriminationhadalreadybeensubmittedtoarbitration,andalexander,havingvoluntarily id. 152 tocollectattorneys'feesiftheyareentitledtothemundertheapplicablestatute. agreement regarding payment of attorneys' fees and costs represented only part of the agreement and could includingaprovisioninthearbitrationagreementthatlimitsthetimefortheemployeeto employee'srighttoajudicialforumwhenthearbitrationagreementiscontainedinacol- courtonthestatelawandricoclaimsbutreversedontheexchangeactclaims,holding 129 sion(eeoc),gilmersubsequentlybroughtsuitintheunitedstatesdistrictcourtfor the lectivebargainingcontractcreatedbyacompanyandtheemployee'sunion.thefollowing 20 tee for the mobile bar association. ms. alford was named mooreobserves: oftheirlastdayofemploymentwasunconscionable.124 id. l. rev. 1521 (1999); bales, supra note 2. 67 texas, and tennessee. she serves as a vice-president of the 89 existswhenjudgingwhethertherewasmanifestdisregardforthelaw.157 richard a. bales, compulsory arbitration of employment claims: a practical guide to designing and awrittenarbitrationagreementgovernedbythefaa,"anydoubtsconcerningthescopeof compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes trilogy,thesupremecourtheldthatapre-disputeagreementtoarbitrateclaimsunderthe id. (quoting mitsubishi motors corp. v. soler chrysler-plymouth, inc., 473 u.s. 614, 625 (1985). oneissuethatthecourtdidnotaddressingilmerwaswhethercertaintypesofem- 143 employment disputes id. at 289. c. fully inform the employee of the arbitration obligations 386 thesupremecourtheld 81 the agreement will be enforced. id. at 23-24. moore, supra note 6, at 1534. onecourthasdeviatedfromthatstandard.moorenotesthattheninthcircuit,inprudential 1984, the mcmahons filed a complaint against shearson in the united states district court exchangeactandricoclaimsweresubjecttoarbitration.54 26 44 fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 inthe2001-2002term,theunitedstatessupremecourtdecidedeeoc v. waffle house, inrodriguez de quijas v. shearson/american express inc.,55 dischargedbecausehehadproducedtoomanydefectiveparts.9 154 162 2 does not waive its right to arbitration by failing to demand arbitration during the pendency of an eeoc inwhichthecourtheldthatanarbitrationagreementwasvoidunder�14ofthe thecourtheldthatonlyemploymentcontractsoftransportationworkerswere v. serv. corp. int'l, 324 f.3d 212 (3d cir. 2003) (holding that unenforceable provisions of an arbitration id. id. 16 supreme court, which definitively stated that the faa applies to contracts of employment, 125 tory,andtheburdenisonthepartyopposingarbitrationtoshowthatcongressintendedto before the agreement can be enforced a court must first determine whether a valid wouldbebiased,notingthatthenyserulesprovidedprotectionsagainstbiasedpanels.87 fromtheseguidelineswhereapartyboundbyanarbitrationagreementraisesclaimsfounded adeaclaimswouldcontinuetobeissuedbecausenotallclaimswouldbesubjecttoarbi- hestatesthat: thefaa.105 bales, supra note 2 at 595. signeda"salesprocedureagreement"withmitsubishi,ajapanesecorporation,thatcalled "`byagreeingtoarbitrateastatutoryclaim,apartydoesnotforgothesubstantiverightsaf- theninthcircuit'sdecisionwasreversedbytheunitedstates arbitrationagreementwasunenforceablebecausetheemployeewouldberesponsiblefor decisioncanbeappealedtothecourtsforgrossmistakeormanifestdisregardforthelaw.155 62 forexample,inmartin v. sci management l.p.,145 compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes federalcourts"precludedarbitrationoftheclaim.46 402 to show how discovery restrictions prevented her from presenting her employment discrimination claims); enforceable.111 arbitrateanagediscriminationinemploymentact(adea)claimwasvalidunderthe id. at 242. thesupremecourt compel arbitration where employer failed to provide employee with a copy of the rules governing arbitra- holding that the employees were not given sufficient notice of the agreement shearson filed a motion to compel otheremployeecommunication.132 moore, supra note 6, at 1536. callynotethattheemployeewillberequiredtoarbitrateanyclaimandwillstillbe likewise,thecourtheldthat"`questionsofarbitrabilitymustbeaddressedwithahealthy picionofthedesirabilityofarbitrationandofthecompetenceofarbitraltribunalsinhibited inwritingandmadeavailabletothepublicandreasonedthatjudicialopinionsaddressing waslimitedtoemploymentcontracts 42 f.3d 1299 (9th cir. 1994). 149 compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes adeaindicatingacongressionalintenttoprecludeenforcementofarbitrationagree- accordedbycongress."19 346 u.s. 427 (1953). id. at 618-19. africanamerican,washiredbygardner-denverasamaintenanceworker.8 forcedtowithholdshipmentofover900vehiclesallegedlyorderedbysoler.32 helen johnson alford id. id. 65 bringtheclaimorprovidenoticeoftheclaimtotheemployerwillnotnecessarilyinvalidate tionofemploymentdisputes.94 thearbitrator 77 longstandingjudicialhostilitytoarbitrationagreementsthathadexistedatenglishcom- the other contents of the handbook and did not contain compulsory terms was unenforceable). fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 disputes.indeterminingwhethertoenforcetheagreement,acourt'sdecisionislikelyto tionofstatutoryclaims.96 sincetheunitedstatessupremecourt'sdecisioningilmer v. interstate/johnson lane id. at 35. drafting and enforcing pre-dispute arbitration agreements forarbitrationofalldisputesbetweentheparties.31 id. at 479. 72 346 u.s. 427 (1953). 56 id. for was insufficient.165 federalpolicyfavoringarbitrationagreements'...isatbottomapolicyguaranteeingthe committee. she is president of the alabama defense lawyers rightsrelatedtocollectiveactivity,suchastherighttostrike,inordertoobtaineconomic id. at 619-20. alexander filed a grievance continuetobeissuedbecausenotallclaimswouldbesubjecttoarbitration.92 � 4.14 (2000 & supp 2008). id. at 30-31 (citing 9 u.s.c. � 10(b) (1988)). 171 grantedgardner-denver'smotionforsummaryjudgment,holdingthattheclaimofracial underthecollectivebargainingagreementinforcebetweenthecompanyandhisunion.10 of discriminatory practices, an inability to obtain effective appellate review and a "stifling id. at 56. id. forded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, the supreme court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the courts thecourt asasecuritiesrepresentativewiththenewyorkstockexchange.69 holdingincasesinvolvingemploymentdisputes. 127 clause of a collective-bargaining agreement and his cause of action under title vii."28 adisagreementarosebetweentheparties regardlessofwhetherthepolicyisalsofoundintheemployeehandbook,applicationorsome (n.d. ill. 1993)). id. 97 resolvequestionsofcontractualrights,thearbitratordoesnothavetheauthoritytoresolve c. arbitration of employment disputes in the non-union context employee.116 toprovideforequitablerelief.althoughthecourtrefutedthesechallenges,moorereasons however,theninthcircuithadinterpretedsection1toexemptallemploymentcontracts thatifthepartieswereunabletoagreeuponanarbitratorwithinsixtydaysafter thesupremecourtdeterminedthatdespiteastrongpolicyfavoringthefaa, 100 great western mortg. corp. v. peacock, 110 f.3d 222, 231, n.36 (3d cir. 1997) (rejecting plaintiff's claims arbitrationact]wastoenforceprivateagreementsintowhichpartieshadentered,'acon- thattheninthcircuithadpreviouslystruckdownamoregenerousone-yearlimitations 73 id. at 267 (citing ingle v. circuit city stores, inc., 328 f.3d 1165, 1175 (9th cir. 2003)). see, e.g., ciago v. ameriquest mortg. co., 295 f. supp. 2d 324, 331 (s.d.n.y. 2003) (holding that the after first as membership chair of the dri workers' compensation agreement that prohibited them from bringing a claim unless it was filed within thirty days interstatehiredgilmerasamanageroffinancialservicesinmay1981.68 id. of the defense research institute, ms. alford currently serves securitiesact.62 id. at 59-60. when soler experienced difficulty in meeting its expected sales volume, and mitsubishi was see, e.g., rogers v. n.y. univ., 220 f.3d 73 (2d cir. 2000) (refusing to compel arbitration of ada andcontroversy�theuseofmandatorypre-disputearbitrationagreementstoresolveemploy- asettlementsatisfactorytobothemployerandemployee."24 id. at 52. thesecases,mitsubishi motors corp. v. soler chrysler-plymouth, inc.,30 areunsuitableforarbitration.149 wright haveappliedthe"clearandunmistakable"standardincasesinvolvingacollective whichaccordingtogilmerwouldresultinalackofpublicknowledgeofdiscriminatory 19 131 104 compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes betweenemployerandemployeetoresolvefutureemploymentdisputesbybindingarbitra- finally,thecourtdisagreed court set a trial date). thattheemployeemayrequest"`anyandallreliefavailableunderthelaw.'"143 many of the suggestions found in part iii of this article were taken from the following articles: scott s. ofappealsregardingthearbitrabilityofadeaclaims.78 thatitdidnotspecifywhoborethecostsofarbitration.thecourtindicatedthatapartywho fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 id. at 258. 387 ii. fromthefaa'sreach.103 175 f.3d 325, 331-32 (4th cir. 1999) (court will uphold arbitration of expressly listed statutes). theemployercanwaivetherighttoarbitrateifitdelaysinrequestingarbitration.indeter- thepartyshouldbeheldtoitunlesscongressitselfhasevincedanintentiontoprecludea formeremployer.thearbitrationagreementprovidedthattheemployeewouldbearhalfthe adeaandtheamericanswithdisabilitiesact.therefore,althoughanemployee thecourtfurtherheldthat" `thepreeminentconcernofcongressinpassingthe[federal graduate of tulane university, having received her jd cum 87 thecracks."139 controversyrelatingtotheaccountsthemcmahonsmaintainedwithshearson.43 factorsasthetimeelapsedfromthecommencementoflitigationtotherequestforarbitra- id. moststatecontract their own legal fees in "direct contravention to title vii's statutory right to attorneys' fees 45 althoughthecourtingreen tree heldthatthearbitrationagreementinquestionwas 398 theunitedstatessupremecourtgranted thecourtshavealsorefusedtoenforcearbitrationagreementswhenapplyingthesame id. at 54. forum.'"81 issues' regarding compulsory arbitration, then, involve defining the minimum components 403 3 arbitrationagreementoritmaybedeemedunenforceable. 116 employeeswillhavefewergroundsuponwhichtochallengeanarbitrationagreement.the a claim in both forums was unfair to the employer, stating that by filing a separate action notedthatthecourthadpreviouslyreliedonargumentssimilartogilmer'sinsupportof thatacompulsoryarbitrationagreementmustpossesstoensurejudicialenforcement."5 55 resistsarbitration,duetoclaimsofsteeparbitrationcosts,bearstheburdenofshowingthe 54 regardingarbitrationofemploymentmatters.partiiiwillprovidesuggestionsonhowto 399 bypermittinganemployeetopursuefullybothhisremedyunderthegrievance-arbitration of"anycontroversybetweenaregisteredrepresentativeandanymemberormemberor- e. do not restrict damages ifemployeesexpresslywaivetherighttoajury,thereshouldbenoexpectationofajury exemptfromcoverageunderthefaa.incircuit city,thecourtgrantedcertioraritodecide whethersection1ofthefederalarbitrationact100 fdcc quarterly/summer 2008 onsuspicionofarbitrationasamethodofweakeningtheprotectionsaffordedinthesubstan- thecourtdisagreedwithgilmer's id. at 38. encompassedwithinavalidarbitrationagreementweresubjecttoarbitrationpursuantto 5 the faa and that it furthered the general policy goals of the faa favoring arbitration. id. claim where, under wright test, generalized clause too vague to be "clear and unmistakable" but, in dictum, the id. at 57-58. id. at 24. securitiesactof1934wasenforceable.inrodriguez,thepetitionerssignedastandard theunitedstatessupremecourtgrantedcertiorari 384 faatothecase.109 thecourtfurtherheldthat"[a]rbitralprocedures,whilewellsuitedtotheresolution thereisnobright-linerule,however,fordeterminingwhenapartyhaswaiveditsrightto ofshowingthelikelihoodofprohibitivelyexpensivecosts.becausetheemployerpresented arbitrableissuesshouldberesolvedinfavorofarbitration."129 periodinasimilarcase.126 findingnothingin tion."2 of arbitration proceedings is not as complete; the usual rules of evidence do not apply; and 117 "a compulsory arbitration agreement is defined as a prospective agreement thatthestatutoryclaimsweresubjecttobindingarbitration.35 compulsatory agreements to arbitrate employment disputes id. at 628. 390 96