Employers are increasingly turning to arbitration to reduce the costs and burdens of employment-related litigation. Proponents of arbitration contend it is often less expensive than litigation, frequently quicker, but just as fair. Moreover, proponents argue that employer programs utilizing various alternative dispute resolution techniques may resolve employment disputes early and entirely avoid the need for litigation or even arbitration proceedings.In the wake of the #MeToo movement, however, employment arbitration has come under sustained attack in some quarters of the popular media. According to some, employment arbitration silences victims of unlawful workplace conduct and deprives employees of the opportunity to vindicate their rights. Even before the #MeToo movement turned its focus on arbitration, several recent academic surveys concluded that employment arbitration systematically disfavors employees compared to litigation. In apparent response to such criticisms, legislation has been proposed at the state and federal level in the last year seeking to restrict the use of employment arbitration. How persuasive are these criticisms and how informative are these studies?
Featuring:
Prof. William H. J. Hubbard, Professor of Law University of Chicago Law School
Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.