Friday, August 8, 2014

Fancy Footwork in Sidestepping Arbitration

A new piece by Jonathan R. Harkavy, Class Action Waivers in Title VII Cases after Italian Colors: Sidestepping the Individual Arbitration Mandate, recently  posted on SSRN:

The Supreme Court ruled in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. -- 186 L. Ed. 2d 417, 133 S. Ct. 2403 (2013), that class action waivers ordinarily must be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act even when the cost of an arbitration exceeds a claimant's potential recovery. This essay suggests, however, that employee waivers of class treatment in arbitrations are not appropriate for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of enforcement provisions unique to that statute. Because Congress has effectively set its legislative face against limits on employee access to class treatment, employee class treatment waivers are unenforceable as to Title VII status discrimination and retaliation claims.

 The article focuses on a number of provision in Title VII that the author argues show a commitment to judicial enforcement that the Court found absent in the Sherman Act in Italian Colors. These provisions are also largely absent from the ADEA, which draws its enforcement scheme from the FLSA, so the Gilmer decision doesn't, in theory at least, foreclose the argument.

As someone who has railed unsuccssfully against the arbitration tide in the past, I wish the argument luck without being super optimistic about its success!

CAS 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2014/08/a-new-piece-by-jonathan-r-harkavy-posted-on-ssrn-the-supreme-court-ruled-in-american-express-co-v-italian-colors-restaur.html

Arbitration | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef01a3fd42b8d5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fancy Footwork in Sidestepping Arbitration:

Comments

Post a comment