Want to Win in an Employment Dispute? For Workers, Study Says to Arbitrate, Not Litigate
A study released Thursday found that of the 10% of employment decisions resolved by a decision in arbitration and the 14% resolved by a decision in litigation, employees were 32% more likely to win in an arbitration proceeding, compared to 11% in court.
May 16, 2019 at 04:32 PM
3 minute read
The vast majority of employment disputes are settled, whether the cases are resolved in arbitration or litigation. But of the small percentage of cases that end in a decision, employees are three times more likely to win in arbitration than in court, a study released Thursday by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform found.
The analysis conducted by ndp analytics and funded by the business-friendly ILR found that of the 10% of employment decisions resolved by a decision in arbitration and the 14% resolved by a decision in litigation, employees were 32% more likely to win in an arbitration proceeding, compared to 11% in litigation. The report, which ILR touts as the largest study of employment dispute resolution, is based on an analysis of nearly 100,000 employment arbitration cases and federal court cases that ended between 2014 and 2018.
In addition to winning more often, employees who used arbitration also won on average twice as much money as employees who won a court judgment—$520,630 versus $269,885, the study found.
The disputes also were resolved faster in arbitration at 569 days than in litigation at 665 days, it said.
The results show that arbitration is a more efficient way to resolve disputes than litigation, said ILR senior vice president for legal reform policy Matt Webb.
With arbitration, employers “don't have to worry as much about excessive discovery like they do in traditional court-based litigation,” he said in an interview. “The rules surrounding the arbitration process are much less formal, and you should expect that your legal fees on both sides are lower because you don't have to litigate as long or have the sheer level of motions practice.”
The study was released on the same day that the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing titled “Justice Denied: Forced Arbitration and the Erosion of our Legal System” among a shift in public sentiment about arbitration agreements, namely nondisclosure agreements that prohibit employees from speaking publicly about their claims, since #MeToo changed the conversation around harassment and discrimination.
“This study shows hands down that employees fare much, much better in arbitration than they do in litigation,” Lisa Rickard, president of the ILR, said in an emailed statement to Corporate Counsel. “If Congress takes away the option for employees to use arbitration and forces them into filing lawsuits, the only winners will be trial lawyers looking to cash in on excessive litigation.”
The ndp report also found that the overwhelming majority, 79%, of employees filing arbitration claims are lower- to middle-income workers who earn less than $100,000 a year.
“This is a long-term dispute between the trial bar and the business community because they want to find any way they possibly can to increase class action litigation, and unfortunately the folks that are getting lost in the debate are often employees and consumers,” Webb said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
How Marsh & McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
Trending Stories
- 1Walking a Minute in Your Adversary’s Shoes: Addressing the Issue of 'Naive Realism' at Mediation
- 2The Moving Goalposts of Overtime Exemption: Texas Judge Invalidates 2024 Salary Threshold Rule
- 3New Research Study Predicts Continued Growth for Generative AI in Legal
- 4Litera Acquires Document Automation Startup Office & Dragons
- 5Patent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250