Mandatory arbitration of employment discrimination disputes: Can justice be served

Since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the flow of cases into federal courts asserting various types of employment discrimination claims has steadily increased. In 1991, somewhat abruptly, the Supreme Court ruled that when an employee had agreed to submit "all disputes arising out of the employment relationship" to arbitration, this also required him to submit a dispute arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") to binding arbitration. This decision precipitated many employers to fashion agreements or other devices requiring that employment disputes (including statutory employment discrimination claims) be adjudicated by arbitrators acting in non-governmental forums rather than in the courts.;It concludes by addressing question posed by the title: Can justice be served by the mandatory arbitration of employment discrimination disputes?;This dissertation examines the mandated arbitration of statutory employment discrimination disputes from several perspectives. The study first addresses the extent to which an employee is waiving valuable constitutional and statutory rights when required to submit an employment discrimination dispute to binding arbitration and the circumstances under which such a waiver is valid and binding, and when it is not. Next, it examines the outcomes (e.g., prevailing party, amount of award) of employment discrimination cases arbitrated contrasted to those litigated in order to determine whether the particular forum of adjudication produces differing results. Finally, it discusses whether, despite the waiver of these rights, mandatory arbitration of employment discrimination provides certain benefits to employees not otherwise available even if they have access to litigation.