1932

Abstract

This article offers a comprehensive overview of the academic literature concerning mandatory employment arbitration and existing empirical evidence. Proponents of mandatory employment arbitration contend mandatory arbitration provides access to justice to those excluded from the traditional civil litigation system. Conversely, opponents of mandatory employment arbitration assert that it is a coercive system that disproportionately benefits employers and disadvantages employees. Although these entrenched perceptions of mandatory employment arbitration are not new, an expanding body of recent empirical research provides fresh insights. The empirical literature reveals lower employee success rates and financial awards, longer case resolution times, and evidence of a repeat player effect in arbitration relative to civil litigation and, as a whole, tends to support arguments made by opponents of the forum. This article reviews the literature on the major debates surrounding employment arbitration and corresponding empirical evidence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120822-112007
2023-10-05
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/19/1/annurev-lawsocsci-120822-112007.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120822-112007&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Am. Const. Soc 2022. Diversity of the federal bench. Rep., Am. Const. Soc. Washington, DC: https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/diversity-of-the-federal-bench/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228 2013.)
  3. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 2011.)
  4. Chandrasekher A. 2021. An empirical investigation of diversity in U.S. arbitration Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. Davis: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3903718
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chandrasekher AC, Horton D. 2019. Arbitration nation: data from four providers. Calif. Law Rev. 107:1–66
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chesnokova S. 2019. Arbitration of employment claims globally. Employer Report June 21. https://www.theemployerreport.com/tag/international-arbitration/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clermont KM, Schwab SJ. 2004. How employment discrimination plaintiffs fare in federal court. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 1:2429–58
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen TH. 2008. General civil jury trial litigation in state and federal courts: a statistical portrait. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 5:3593–618
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cole SR. 2021. Arbitrator diversity: Can it be achieved?. Wash. Univ. Law Rev. 98:965–95
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Colvin AJS. 2003. The dual transformation of workplace dispute resolution. Ind. Relat. 42:4712–35
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Colvin AJS. 2008. Empirical research on employment arbitration: Clarity amidst the sound and fury?. Empl. Rights Employ. Policy J. 11:2405–47
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Colvin AJS. 2011. An empirical study of employment arbitration: case outcomes and processes. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 8:11–23
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Colvin AJS. 2018. The growing use of mandatory arbitration Rep., Econ. Policy Inst. Washington, DC: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-growing-use-of-mandatory-arbitration-access-to-the-courts-is-now-barred-for-more-than-60-million-american-workers/
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Colvin AJS. 2019. The metastisization of mandatory arbitration. Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 94:13–24
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Colvin AJS, Gough MD. 2015. Individual employment rights arbitration in the U.S.: actors and outcomes. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 68:51019–42
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Colvin AJS, Pike K. 2014. Saturns and Rickshaws revisited: What kind of employment arbitration system has developed?. Ohio State J. Dispute Resolut. 29:159–83
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eigen ZJ, Sherwyn D. 2016. Deferring for justice: how administrative agencies can solve the employment dispute quagmire by endorsing an improved arbitration system. Cornell J. Law Public Policy. 26:21
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Eisenberg T, Hill E. 2003. Arbitration and litigation of employment claims: an empirical comparison. Dispute Resolut. J. 58:444–55
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 US __ ( 2018.)
  20. Estlund C. 2018. The black hole of mandatory arbitration. N.C. Law Rev. 96:679–709
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Estreicher S. 2001. Saturns for rickshaws: the stakes in the debate over predispute employment arbitration agreements. Ohio State J. Dispute Resolut. 16559–70
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Galanter M. 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change. Law Soc. Rev. 9:195–160
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gen. Account. Off 1995. Employment discrimination: Most private sector employers use alternative dispute resolution Rep. GAO/HEHS 95–150 Gen. Account. Off. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilmer v. Interstate/JohnsonLane Corp., 500 US 20 ( 1991.)
  25. Glover JM. 2006. Beyond unconscionability: class action waivers and mandatory arbitration agreements. Vanderbilt Law Rev 59::1735–70
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Glover JM. 2022. Mass arbitration. Stanford Law Rev. 74:1283–392
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gough MD. 2014. The high costs of an inexpensive forum: an empirical analysis of employment discrimination claims heard in arbitration and civil litigation. Berkeley J. Employ. Labor Law 35:1–291–112
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gough MD. 2016. Employment lawyers as gatekeepers: how employment arbitration affects employee access to justice. Adv. Ind. Labor Relat. 22:105–34
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gough MD. 2018. How do organizational environments and mandatory arbitration shape employment attorney case selection? Evidence from an experimental vignette. Ind. Relat. 57:4541–67
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gough MD. 2020. Characteristics and professional practices of labor and employment arbitrators. Arbitr. Law Rev. 12:117–38
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gough M. 2021. A tale of two forums: employment discrimination outcomes in arbitration and civil litigation. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 74:4875–97
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gough MD, Colvin AJS. 2020. Decision-maker and context effects in employment arbitration. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 73:2479–97
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gough MD, Taylor Poppe ES 2020. (Un)Changing rates of pro se representation in federal court. Law Soc. Inq. 45:3567–89
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Green MZ. 2020. Arbitrarily selecting black arbitrators. Fordham Law Rev. 88:2255–87
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Horton D, Chandrasekher AC. 2016. Employment arbitration after the revolution. DePaul Law Rev. 65:457457–60
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Klass BS, Mahony D, Wheeler H. 2006. Decision-making about workplace dispute: a policy-capturing study of employment arbitrators, labor arbitrators, and jurors. Ind. Relat. 45:168–93
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 US ___ 2019.)
  38. LaRue H, Symonette A. 2019.. Diversity and inclusion in arbitrator selection or “I select who I know.” Pap., Am. Bar Assoc. Chicago: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2019/annual-conference/papers/diversity-and-inclusion-in-arbitrator-selection.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nielsen LB, Nelson RL, Lancaster R. 2010. Individual justice or collective legal mobilization? Employment discrimination litigation in post-civil rights United States. J Empir. Legal Stud. 7:175–201
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Oppenheimer DB. 2003. Verdicts matter: An empirical study of California employment discrimination and wrongful discharge jury verdicts reveals low success rates for women and minorities. Univ. Calif. Davis Law Rev 37:535–49
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pham ND, Donovan M. 2022. Fairer, faster, better III: an empirical assessment of consumer and employment arbitration Rep., Inst. Legal Reform, US Chamb. Commerce Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Racabi G. 2022. Abolish the employer prerogative, unleash work law. Berkeley J. Employ. Labor Law 43:179–138
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Resnik J. 2015. Diffusing disputes: the public in the private of arbitration, the private in courts, and the erasure of rights. Yale Law J 124:2804–939
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sherwyn D, Estreicher S, Heise M. 2005. Assessing the case for employment arbitration: a new direction for empirical research. Stanford Law Rev 57:1557–91
    [Google Scholar]
  45. St. Antoine TJ 2008. Mandatory arbitration: why it's better than it looks. Univ. Mich. J. Law Reform 41:4783–812
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Staszak S. 2015. No Day in Court: Access to Justice and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment. Stud. Postwar Am. Political Dev Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Staszak S. 2020. Privatizing employment law: the expansion of mandatory arbitration in the workplace. Stud. Am. Political Dev. 34:2239–68
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Stipanowich TJ, Lamare J. 2014. Living with ADR: evolving perceptions and use of mediation, arbitration, and conflict management in Fortune 1,000 corporations. Harvard Negot. Law Rev. 19:1–68
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Stone KVW, Colvin AJS. 2015. The arbitration epidemic Brief. Pap. 414 Econ. Policy Inst. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ware S. 2017. The centrist case for enforcing adhesive arbitration agreements. Harvard Negot. Law Rev. 23:29–121
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120822-112007
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120822-112007
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error