New Bill Would Prohibit Arbitration Agreements Covering Sexual Harassment, Gender Discrimination
In reaction to the “Silence Breakers,” a bipartisan group of lawmakers recently introduced legislation that would prohibit employers from including sexual harassment or gender discrimination claims in their arbitration agreements.
March 21, 2018 at 02:58 PM
3 minute read
In reaction to the “Silence Breakers,” a bipartisan group of lawmakers recently introduced legislation that would prohibit employers from including sexual harassment or gender discrimination claims in their arbitration agreements. Advocates say the bill, known as the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act, would allow victims of these types of acts to bring a cause of action in court and publicly address the situation.
It is estimated that more than half of all American workers are subject to mandatory arbitration clauses. Through such agreements, both sides agree to resolve a dispute out of court with the assistance of an independent arbitrator rather than by going to court. Companies consider it an effective and more streamlined dispute-resolution system that saves money.
In sponsoring the bill, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, says arbitration in situations involving sex harassment and discrimination results in a “secret meeting” where the affected parties “try to work out some kind of deal that really only protects the predator.” Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Illinois, said the bill would “help root out bad actors by preventing them from sweeping this problem under the rug.”
One company in particular is in the spotlight as proponent's push for the bill. Earlier this year, news broke that thousands of former employees of Sterling Jewelers, the Akron-based parent company of Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry, claimed to have been subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination during their time working for the jewelry giant. The class-action arbitration case was first started in 2008 and since Sterling requires all workers to waive their right to bring any employment-related disputes against their employer in court, the company had successfully kept the claims out of the public eye. Those pushing for the bill consider Sterling to be an example of how binding arbitration and sexual harassment claims just don't go together.
Given the surge of sexual harassment claims in recent months, it is not surprising that such a bill is taking center stage. Today, more and more people are feeling emboldened to stand up and raise sexual harassment claims. Those pushing for the bill hope it will help keep that momentum going. While there is nothing employers must do at this point to change their arbitration clauses, employers should be diligent in ensuring their workplace is and remains harassment-free. Sexual harassment and gender discrimination is very real, very relevant, and could be very costly.
Lindsay M. Rinehart is an associate, and Robert G. Brody is the founding and principal attorney at Brody and Associates, which has offices in Westport, Connecticut, and New York City.
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 AllWho Owns a Social Media Marketing Account? It's Pretty Simple, Really
Consumer Arbitration Clause Concerns: How Can We Ensure a Fair Process?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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