Report • By Katherine V.W. Stone and Alexander J.S. Colvin • December 7, 2015

The arbitration process

Arbitration processes in general involve some form of private tribunal that adjudicates the issue in dispute. Arbitration procedures are typically a simpler, more informal version of court procedures, for example relaxing the formal rules of evidence. Underneath these generalizations, however, there is a great deal of variation in arbitration procedures. Different arbitration procedures vary considerably in their degrees of formality, similarity to court procedures, and amount of due process provided to the participants.

The arbitration agreement itself is the primary source of the rules governing the arbitration process. The parties to this private agreement are generally allowed to write into the arbitration clause whatever rules they wish to govern how disputes will be resolved. In practice this means that the corporation that chooses to make arbitration mandatory for its workers or consumers will write the rules of the procedure, and the worker or consumer will have no choice but to assent if they want to enter into an employment or consumer transaction.

Although corporations are free to craft whatever rules they wish for arbitration, many choose to incorporate by reference the rules of an established arbitration service provider. These arbitration service providers, such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or JAMS, will administer the arbitration, providing lists of arbitrators for the parties to select from, hearing rooms in which the arbitration can be conducted, and standard rules or procedures to be followed. Organizations such as the AAA and JAMS are important actors in the arbitration system. While they are established as private nonprofit entities, they are also well-known organizations that are subject to public pressures and provide legitimacy to the arbitration process.

In response to concerns about fairness in mandatory arbitration in the 1990s, a number of interested organizations jointly drafted a Due Process Protocol establishing basic fairness standards to be followed in arbitration. These included such important standards as the right to representation by counsel and disclosure of arbitrator conflicts of interest. However, in many other areas of procedure, such as how much discovery should be provided, the allocation of the arbitrators’ fees, and whether arbitration should be mandatory or voluntary, the Due Process Protocol did not provide clear guidance. Despite its limitations, the Due Process Protocol did provide some degree of fairness protections, which were then incorporated into the procedures of both the AAA and JAMS. In some areas these organizations’ procedures go beyond the protections provided in the Due Process Protocol. For example, whereas the protocol leaves the allocation of fees issue open, the AAA’s employment arbitration rules provide that when arbitration is mandatory (i.e., “employer promulgated”), the employer is required to pay 100 percent of the arbitrator’s fees.

The larger service providers administer many, but not all, mandatory arbitration cases. In a 2014 survey of plaintiff attorneys conducted by one of the authors of this report, Alexander Colvin, and Mark Gough of Penn State University, respondents were asked who had administered the most recent mandatory arbitration case they were involved in. The AAA was the largest service provider, administering 50 percent of cases. JAMS was second with 20 percent of cases. Another 15 percent of cases were administered by other smaller service providers, which have not been subject to the same scrutiny or research attention as AAA or JAMS. Meanwhile a further 15 percent of cases were run on an ad hoc basis with no administering agency at all. In this latter category of ad hoc cases, it is the mandatory arbitration agreement itself that alone provides the rules establishing the procedures for arbitration. While we can look at the procedures of organizations such as the AAA and JAMS as providing some degree of due process protections for employees or consumers required to arbitrate under mandatory procedures, this research suggests that there is a high degree of variation in arbitration processes. The ability of corporations to set the rules of mandatory arbitration allows them, and not the workers or consumers, to choose whether to adopt the procedures of a reputable organization with due process protections or rules that violate basic principles of fairness.

A major new feature of mandatory arbitration agreements in both the employment and consumer settings is the inclusion of waivers of class-action claims. The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion upholding the enforceability of class-action waivers is fueling the adoption of class-action waivers in arbitration agreements. A corporate-defense law firm recently estimated that the percentage of companies that include arbitration clauses with class-action waivers in their contracts grew from 16 percent in 2012 to 43 percent in 2014.45

Class-action waivers appear to be widely used in employment arbitration agreements. In a 2015 survey of 481 practicing employment arbitrators, Colvin and Gough asked the arbitrators about the provisions of the arbitration agreements in cases they had decided. The respondents reported that class-action waivers were included in 52 percent of the agreements in cases they had decided.46

Procedures provide only part of the story of how arbitration works. Under established arbitration law, if the arbitration agreement does not specify procedures to be used, then the arbitrator has plenary authority to decide how the case is conducted, with very limited grounds for review. As a consequence, the neutrality and fairness of the arbitrator is a central concern in ensuring the fairness of the arbitral process.

Colvin and Gough’s 2015 survey of practicing employment arbitrators provides some insights into who the arbitrators are. Demographic diversity is limited; 74 percent are male and 92 percent are non-Hispanic white. Just under half (49 percent) are full-time neutrals. Most of the part-time neutrals who also serve as arbitrators are practicing attorneys, and these are twice as likely to normally represent employers (61 percent) as employees (30 percent) in their legal practices. Over half (59 percent) of all full- or part-time employment arbitrators had at some point in their career worked as legal counsel representing employers, whereas 36 percent had at some point represented employees or unions. It is certainly possible and indeed often happens that an arbitrator can become a genuine neutral despite having been an advocate representing one side or the other. But it is a major concern that a substantial majority of employment arbitrators come out of backgrounds representing employers.

Outcomes of mandatory arbitration

Mandatory arbitration is not just a theoretical limitation on worker and consumer rights; it has a major practical impact on the ability of workers and consumers to pursue their legal claims and to win their cases.

Impact of arbitration on workers’ success rates and recovery amounts

Arbitration can be an effective alternative mechanism to the courts for resolving many disputes. Whereas the litigation system is often slow and costly, arbitration systems can be faster and cheaper. For example, labor arbitration has a long track record of success in unionized workplaces and is widely accepted as fair and effective by organized labor and employers. However, for workers and consumers, the question is whether mandatory arbitration unilaterally introduced by companies can be as effective as the courts at enforcing their statutory rights.

Investigating the outcomes of mandatory arbitration is challenging for researchers. Ideally we would like to conduct a double blind study in which cases are randomly assigned to either litigation or mandatory arbitration and the outcomes compared. However in practice this would be both impracticable and unethical when dealing with people with real cases. Nonetheless, even if we cannot compare randomly assigned cases under litigation with arbitration, we can get some information by looking generally at the outcomes of cases in the two forums and then analyzing similarities or differences between them.

Table 1 shows the results from a 2011 study comparing overall trial outcomes in mandatory arbitration and litigation. The comparison looks at the outcomes of 1,213 mandatory arbitration cases administered over a five-year period by the American Arbitration Association, the nation’s largest arbitration service provider. These are compared with the outcomes of studies of employment discrimination cases in the federal courts and non–civil rights employment cases in state courts.

This comparison supports the idea that arbitration can avoid some of the delays of the litigation system. Whereas the average time to trial is almost two years in either federal or state court, it is just under a year under mandatory arbitration. However, the differences in the outcomes of trials are also stark.

Employee win rates in mandatory arbitration are much lower than in either federal court or state court, with employees in mandatory arbitration winning only just about a fifth of the time (21.4 percent), which is 59 percent as often as in the federal courts and only 38 percent as often as in state courts. Differences in damages awarded are even greater, with the median or typical award in mandatory arbitration being only 21 percent of the median award in the federal courts and 43 percent of the median award in the state courts. The most comprehensive comparison comes when we look at the mean or average amount recovered in damages across all cases, including those in which the employee loses and zero damages are awarded. When we make this comparison, we find that the average outcome in mandatory arbitration is only 16 percent of that in the federal courts and 7 percent of that in state courts. While there are additional factors to consider in comparing the two systems, at the outset it is important to recognize that in a simple aggregate comparison, mandatory arbitration is massively less favorable to employees than are the courts.



Comparison of outcomes of employment arbitration and litigation

Mandatory employment arbitration (Colvin) Federal court employment discrimination (Eisenberg and Hill) State court non-civil rights (Eisenberg and Hill)
Mean time to trial (days) 361.5 709 723
Employee trial win rate 21.40%
Median damages $36,500 $176,426 $85,560
Mean damages $109,858 $394,223 $575,453
Mean including zeros $23,548 $143,497 $328,008

Note: All damage amounts are converted to 2005 dollar amounts to facilitate comparison.

Source: The “Colvin” dataset draws on all employment arbitration cases based on employer-promulgated procedures administered by the American Arbitration Association from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007. Data are assembled by Colvin from reports filed by the AAA under California Code arbitration service provider reporting requirements. Alexander J.S. Colvin, “An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8(1): 1–23 at 5 (2011). The “Eisenberg and Hill” litigation statistics are reported in Eisenberg, Theodore, and Elizabeth Hill “Arbitration and Litigation of Employment Claims: An Empirical Comparison.” Dispute Resolution Journal 58(4): 44–55 (2003).

Evidence suggests that the picture has not changed much since 2011. A 2015 study of federal court employment discrimination litigation by Theodore Eisenberg found that the employee win rate has dipped in recent years to an average of only 29.7 percent.48 At the same time, another 2015 study found that the employee win rate in employment arbitration had also dipped in recent years, to an average of only 19.1 percent.49 Research has not shown whether a similar dip in employee win rates has occurred in state courts. Whatever the reason for the declining employee success rate in employment cases, these results indicate that while the gap between federal court and arbitration win rates has decreased, it is still the case that the employee win rate in arbitration is 35.7 percent lower than the employee win rate in federal court.

The data presented above only look at overall differences in outcomes. It is reasonable to wonder how much of the mandatory arbitration–litigation outcome gap is due to factors such as the type of cases reaching the trial stage. After all, most cases filed in court settle before they go to trial. So it is possible that settlement patterns could explain part of the difference between trial and arbitration outcomes.

We do not believe that settlement can explain the difference because both court cases and arbitration cases settle prior to trial or hearing in roughly similar proportions. A major study by Nielsen et al. found a 58 percent settlement rate in federal court employment-discrimination litigation,50 while recent research on mandatory arbitration found a 63 percent settlement rate across all employment cases in that forum.51 It may be that there are some differences in which cases settle, but overall it does not appear that differences in the likelihood of settlement before trial can explain the mandatory arbitration–litigation outcome gap.

Another factor that might explain some of the gap between arbitration and court outcomes is differences in pretrial disposition of cases. Many employment litigation cases are resolved through summary judgment motions. The cases that reach trial are often those that survive summary judgment and as a result represent stronger claims. Traditionally, summary judgment was not used frequently in arbitration. However, that picture is increasingly inaccurate, at least as far as mandatory employment arbitration is concerned.

In their 2014 survey, Colvin and Gough asked plaintiffs’ attorneys about their most recent employment cases in litigation and mandatory arbitration.52 In court, summary judgment motions were filed in 77 percent of the cases. However, and surprisingly, summary judgment motions were also filed in nearly half of the arbitration cases (48 percent). While this gap is not insignificant, summary judgment is more common in arbitration than often recognized. One way of looking at how much impact summary judgment has on outcomes is to compare cases across litigation and arbitration where no summary judgment motion was filed. Given the lack of any summary judgment motion in these cases, any differences between the two forums would not be the result of different use of summary judgment. Looking at this subsample of cases in arbitration and litigation where there was no summary judgment motion, Colvin and Gough found that the win rate was 32 percent lower in mandatory arbitration than in litigation. This result indicates that the gap in outcomes cannot be explained away as an effect of greater use of summary judgment motions in litigation.

It could also be argued that the extra time to reach trial might lead to higher damages in the litigation cases. In employment discrimination cases, an employee who is successful in proving discrimination is entitled to collect damages for the economic loss suffered, including back pay and front pay. This would include losses from any period of resulting unemployment, taking into account the duty to mitigate losses by searching for and accepting alternate employment. The key point is that the damages are tied to the period of unemployment caused by the discriminatory employment decision, not to the period from taking a claim to trial. But even considering the possibility of some accumulation of additional damages while awaiting trial, for example due to ongoing psychological distress, the damages under litigation so far outstrip the time to trial that they cannot be explained by the time to trial. According to Table 1, the period to trial in litigation is only about twice as long as in arbitration, whereas the average damages in federal court are nearly four times as large and in state court well over five times as large as in mandatory arbitration.

Overall, the data show a very large gap in outcomes between cases in courts and under mandatory arbitration. The most important measure of overall outcomes is the average damages across all cases, including wins and losses so as to take both win rates and damage rates into account. These are the results reported in the final row of Table 1, which indicate that plaintiffs’ overall economic outcomes are on average 6.1 times better in federal court than in mandatory arbitration ($143,497 versus $23,548) and 13.9 times better in state court than in mandatory arbitration ($328,008 versus $23,548). These are very large differences in outcomes, and attempts to explain away this gap have been largely unsuccessful.

Impact of arbitration on workers’ access to justice and ability to get attorneys

The mandatory arbitration–litigation gap in outcomes has a direct effect on the ability of individual workers to recover compensation for the injuries they have suffered. The gap also reduces the liability exposure of corporations that adopt mandatory arbitration. However, equally important, the mandatory arbitration–litigation gap has a major impact on the ability of workers to make claims in the first place.

To effectively pursue legal claims, most employees rely on finding an attorney willing to take their case. Although individuals can file claims without using an attorney, few are willing to do so, and their success rates are much lower than those who have legal representation. Nielsen et al. found that only 22.5 percent of employees filing employment discrimination cases in the federal courts were unrepresented, and just over a third of those employees eventually obtained representation by legal counsel before the case was completed.53 Some have argued that the greater simplicity and lower cost of arbitration would allow more employees to bring cases in that forum without legal representation. But in practice, we find that only 21.1 percent of employment cases in mandatory arbitration are brought by employees without legal counsel.54

How do employees obtain legal representation? Given that most consumers and low- or middle-income employees lack the financial resources to pay lawyers’ typical hourly rates, the key mechanism for financing representation is the contingency fee, where the plaintiff’s attorney receives 30–40 percent of the damages as a fee if successful, but charges no fee if the employee loses. In their study of plaintiffs’ attorneys in employment cases, Colvin and Gough found that 75 percent typically represented employees under a contingency-fee arrangement, and a further 17 percent used a hybrid arrangement that combined contingency and hourly fees.

The mandatory arbitration–litigation outcome gap has a significant and pernicious effect on the ability to obtain legal counsel under these contingency-fee arrangements. The plaintiffs’ attorney accepting employment cases knows that he or she will lose some of the cases and receive no fee for them, while receiving a fee based on the damages awarded in the successful cases. As a result, attorneys decide whether to accept a case based on their judgment about the likely outcome. But as we have seen, the average outcome is substantially lower in mandatory arbitration than it is for litigation: Damages from arbitration are 16 percent of the average damages from federal court litigation and a mere 7 percent of the average damages in state court. Thus lawyers are reluctant to take cases that are subject to mandatory arbitration. Even if arbitration cases are easier and cheaper to process, the large differences in outcomes can substantially reduce the financial incentive and ability of plaintiffs’ attorneys to accept cases brought by employees covered by mandatory arbitration.

In surveying plaintiffs’ attorneys about their likelihood of accepting potential cases, Colvin and Gough found just such an effect. Whereas on average plaintiffs’ attorneys accepted 15.8 percent of potential cases involving employees who could go to litigation, they accepted about half as many, 8.1 percent, of the potential cases of employees covered by mandatory arbitration. Thus, in addition to producing worse case outcomes than litigation, mandatory arbitration also reduces the likelihood of obtaining the legal representation that will help employees bring a claim in the first place.

Repeat player advantages in arbitration

In dispute resolution, the advantages accruing to repeat players in the system have long been a concern. A business or other organized group that frequently engages in litigation is likely to have advantages over an individual employee or consumer with no previous experience in resolving disputes.55 Repeat players have advantages because they gain familiarity with the system and how to operate effectively in it. They may also be able to lobby for changes to the system that benefit them.

One of the advantages of the traditional labor arbitration system in unionized workplaces is that both the company and the union are repeat players in the system. That means that they are both likely to be involved in future cases, have experience with past cases, and are invested in the development of a fair, effective system of dispute resolution. This balanced bilateral system with repeat players on both sides means that an arbitrator who was not a genuine neutral, and instead began to favor one side, would soon become unacceptable to the other side and not be selected for future cases. This balance between two strong repeat players is a key feature allowing private arbitration systems to function effectively.

In employment and consumer arbitration, the employer is likely to be a repeat player whereas the employee or consumer is likely to be a one-shot player.56 How then can the advantage of the repeat player be balanced? One possibility is that the legal counsel on each side serves as an effective repeat player in the system. A large sophisticated law firm representing the business could be balanced by an aggressive and sophisticated law firm representing the plaintiff. However, in practice legal representation for employees and consumers is much more fractured and of variable quality than that for businesses, which can generally afford to hire large and sophisticated corporate law firms to defend their cases. In a study of lawyers representing parties to employment arbitration, Colvin and Pike found that 76.6 percent of attorneys representing employers listed employment law as a primary practice area, compared with only 56.7 percent of attorneys representing employees.57 Furthermore, in that study, 54.6 percent of employers were represented by a law firm that handled multiple cases in the study population, whereas only 10.7 percent of employees were represented by a law firm handling multiple cases. While attorneys and law firms can provide a type of repeat player in arbitration, this result indicates that it is employers who are far more likely than employees to benefit from representation by this type of repeat player.

Do we find repeat-player advantages in the outcomes of mandatory arbitration cases? In a study of 2,802 mandatory employment arbitration cases decided between 2003 and 2014, Colvin, one of the authors of this report, and Gough looked at the relationship between numbers of cases involving the same employer and outcomes.58 They initially found that as employers were involved in more cases they tended to win more of these cases. This is not surprising and could arise from a range of factors, such as larger employers having better lawyers, more sophisticated human resource (HR) departments, and better internal systems for dealing with workplace conflicts. However, once they controlled for the number of cases involving the employer, they also found a significant effect for the number of cases in which the employer appeared before the same arbitrator. More specifically, the first time an employer appeared before an arbitrator, the employee had a 17.9 percent chance of winning, but after the employer had four cases before the same arbitrator the employee’s chance of winning dropped to 15.3 percent, and after 25 cases before the same arbitrator the employee’s chance of winning dropped to only 4.5 percent.59 The study also found that this negative effect of a long-term employer/arbitrator relationship on an employee’s chances of winning was stronger when the employee was self-represented, i.e., when there was no plaintiff lawyer available to balance the employer’s repeat-player advantage.

What could explain the repeat-player advantage of employers appearing before the same arbitrator multiple times? One possibility is that arbitrators may feel pressure to rule in favor of the employer to be selected in future cases. Although this would go against arbitrator ethical standards and is something that genuinely neutral arbitrators would consciously resist, part-time or more marginal arbitrators without well-established neutral practices could be subject to greater pressures of this nature. While it is difficult to get firm data on this issue, it is noteworthy that some arbitrators in the recent New York Times series on mandatory arbitration admitted that these pressures favor repeat players.60 Even absent any sort of arbitral bias, more sophisticated repeat-player employers may gain an advantage by getting to know particular arbitrators well and developing an understanding of their decision-making patterns and what types of arguments appeal to them. While this alternative explanation might exonerate arbitrators themselves of bias, it would nevertheless suggest that there is a bias in the system that gives employers an advantage over employees as repeat players in the system.

The use of arbitration as part of corporate HR

Mandatory arbitration in employment contracts is spreading as companies adopt it as part of their employment policies. Arbitration has become an important tool in the corporate arsenal to defend against legal claims. But it is also part of the overall human resources strategy of many companies and interacts with other HR policies. Most large companies that adopt mandatory arbitration also have internal dispute-resolution procedures to resolve organizational conflicts before they reach arbitration.

One well-known American company that has introduced this type of internal dispute-resolution procedure is Anheuser-Busch.61 Its dispute-resolution procedure includes mandatory arbitration of employment law disputes. However, the procedure begins with local management review of employee complaints, followed by mediation of any potential legal dispute before the claim proceeds to arbitration. A study of this procedure by Bales and Plowman found that the vast majority of claims are successfully resolved in these earlier stages. From 2003 to 2006, 95 percent of claims were resolved at the initial local review stage. Of the 87 claims that proceeded to mediation over this period, 72, or 83 percent, were successfully resolved at that stage. Ultimately only 15 cases, or 1 percent of the total number of complaints filed under the procedure over the four-year period, reached arbitration. Mandatory arbitration is a part of the Anheuser-Busch procedure, but the overwhelming majority of the claims brought under this system are being effectively resolved through mediation and internal dispute-resolution procedures.

Other companies have adopted more elaborate internal dispute-resolution procedures. The diversified manufacturing company TRW adopted employment arbitration after an upsurge of litigation in the early 1990s.62 However, as part of developing a more comprehensive set of internal dispute-resolution procedures, it also introduced local management complaint procedures, peer review panels (in which peers of the complainant sit on a type of workplace jury to decide complaints), and mediation. The range of dispute-resolution options provided employees with alternative ways of resolving complaints. The result was that cases were resolved early in the process, with only 72 cases reaching mediation over the first three years of the program and only three of these cases reaching arbitration. Furthermore, when cases did reach arbitration, TRW set up the procedure to be binding on the company if they lost, but not binding on the employee if the company won. As a result, employees retained the right to go to court after arbitration. TRW’s procedure is unusual in this respect, but it is a powerful example of the feasibility of resolving employment disputes through effective internal procedures without the necessity of mandatory arbitration procedures that bar employee access to the courts.

These examples show that multipronged dispute-resolution procedures can obviate the need to resort to arbitration under mandatory, binding procedures. However, under current law, the company gets to decide what procedures will be imposed on workers or consumers. The way in which this allows companies to control the legal environment under which they operate was illustrated recently by the conflicts around the ride-sharing company Uber.

There has been a great deal of attention in the courts and the media to the employment status of Uber drivers. The question is, should they be considered employees and thus entitled to the protections of employment law or, as the company alleges, should they be considered independent contractors and not entitled to any employment rights? Despite the publicity, it is less well known that, since 2013, Uber has required its drivers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements. As explained above, the arbitration clause means that a private arbitrator, not a court, will answer the crucial policy question of whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors. The question is important not only for Uber drivers, but for other workers in the so-called “gig economy,” who provide on-demand services coordinated by entities that maintain service platforms.

In a recent decision, a California state court judge refused to enforce Uber’s arbitration agreement on the basis that it was unconscionable.63 Among the features rendering the agreement unconscionable was that it required the driver to pay half of any arbitrator’s fees, creating a major barrier to access for low-income drivers. While the agreement did allow drivers to opt out of the arbitration clause within the first 30 days following signing on to drive for Uber, the opt-out language was buried in fine print toward the end of a long contract, leading the judge to describe it as “illusory because it was highly inconspicuous and incredibly onerous to comply with.”64 Although that judge declined to enforce the arbitration agreements used by Uber in 2013 and 2014, the case is under appeal. In practice Uber can easily redraft the mandatory arbitration agreement to correct the specific deficiencies identified by the judge, thereby making its arbitration agreement enforceable.

The Uber mandatory arbitration procedure requires that all claims be brought individually, not as class actions. As explained above, such a clause is allowable and usually enforceable, thereby preventing Uber drivers from banding together to get their legal claims and status determined, whether by an arbitrator or by a court. In the new world of combined arbitration and class-action waivers, an increasing numbers of workers and consumers are, like Uber drivers, trying to band together to protect their legal rights because to proceed solo would be prohibitively expensive. The status of the Uber class-action ban, as well as the Uber arbitration agreement, is currently on appeal.65

What can be done?

Arbitration Fairness Act

The most direct way to address mandatory arbitration would be for Congress to amend the Federal Arbitration Act to exempt consumer and employment arbitration, or to provide more protection for consumer and employee rights in arbitration. Whereas state-level legislative action to this effect would almost certainly be preempted by the FAA, legislation passed by Congress would encounter no such problem.

The most prominent effort to deal with mandatory arbitration at the federal level has been the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA). Although there have been various versions of the statute, the most recent version would amend the FAA to specify that “…no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of an employment dispute, consumer dispute, antitrust dispute, or civil rights dispute.”66

If enacted, the AFA would effectively eliminate all mandatory arbitration in the employment or consumer realms, as well as in antitrust and civil rights cases. In its statement of congressional findings, the proposed AFA specifically refers to the problems of employees and consumers having little effective choice about entering mandatory arbitration agreements, the deleterious effect on the development of public law, and the lack of judicial review.67

The Arbitration Fairness Act has been repeatedly introduced in Congress, with versions proposed in 2009, 2011, and 2013. Most recently, the AFA was again proposed in 2015 by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). However, it has not received a vote, and passage in the current Congress appears unlikely.

The Franken Amendment and the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

In the absence of general action addressing mandatory arbitration, more progress has been achieved on specific limitations. In 2009, Franken successfully amended the annual Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 to address the use of mandatory arbitration by defense contractors. The specific case motivating the amendment involved serious allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination of a female employee of Halliburton. The Franken Amendment barred any defense contractor with over $1 million in contracts from enforcing a mandatory arbitration agreement in any case involving claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or tort claims relating to sexual assault or harassment. The Franken Amendment is a substantial restriction on the use of mandatory arbitration by defense contractors, but is limited to that sector and applies only to the limited set of claims specified in the amendment. For example, the amendment does not restrict use of mandatory arbitration for other statutory claims such as wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or any claims based on state employment statutes.

The approach taken in the Franken Amendment was subsequently extended to all federal contracts through the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order of 2014 (the FPSW order). The FPSW applies to all federal contractors with contracts of greater than $1 million. Similar to the Franken Amendment, it bars these contractors from enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements in claims based on Title VII or tort claims involving sexual assault or harassment. Although the FPSW is an important extension of the Franken Amendment to a broader set of employers, it suffers from the same limitation in that it applies only to a limited subset of potential employment cases. A federal contractor subject to the FPSW could continue to require its employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements and simply decline to enforce the agreement for Title VII and the specified tort claims, while retaining the ability to use mandatory arbitration as a shield against litigation based on FLSA, state laws such as the state antidiscrimination and wage and hour statutes, or other claims. A further limitation of the FPSW order is that it may well be subject to legal challenge on the basis that it contradicts the provisions of the FAA (as a statutory measure, the Franken Amendment would not be subject to this same argument).

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

As discussed earlier, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has conducted a study of mandatory arbitration in the consumer financial industry as required by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In addition to mandating this study, Dodd–Frank also gives the CFPB authority to restrict or ban mandatory arbitration in consumer financial contracts. The CFPB is considering whether to ban class action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements based on the results of its study. If it does ban the use of mandatory arbitration, this would eliminate the practice in the consumer-finance industry and have a major impact on credit card and other consumer debt contracts.

While the potential action by the CFPB could have a major salutary effect in the consumer-finance contracts field, it is important to recognize the limits of its authority. Action by the CFPB would not extend to employment contracts. Nor would it extend to other types of consumer contracts. So whereas mandatory arbitration clauses might disappear from credit card contracts, they would still exist in restaurant employee contracts, software purchase agreements, medical services contracts, Uber driver agreements, and many other agreements that affect American consumers and workers on a daily basis.


In the past three decades, the Supreme Court has engineered a massive shift in the civil justice system that is having dire consequences for consumers and employees. The Court has enabled large corporations to force customers and employees into arbitration to adjudicate practically all types of alleged violations, including violations of laws to prevent consumer fraud, unsafe products, employment discrimination, nonpayment of wages, and countless other state and federal laws designed to protect citizens against corporate wrongdoing. By delegating dispute resolution to arbitration, the Court now permits corporations to write the rules that will govern their relationships with their workers and customers and design the procedures used to interpret and apply those rules when disputes arise. Moreover, the Court permits corporations to couple mandatory arbitration with a ban on class actions, thereby preventing consumers or employees from joining together to challenge systemic corporate wrongdoing. As one judge opined, these trends give corporations a “get out of jail free” card for all potential transgressions. These trends are undermining decades of progress in consumer and labor rights.

It is difficult to know the practical impact of the courts’ broad delegation of dispute resolution to arbitration because arbitration is private and arbitration decisions are not generally published. However, research suggests that consumers and employees are less likely to win their cases when they are heard in arbitration, and when they do win, the amounts of damage awards are far less than would be forthcoming in a court. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that individuals who have suffered from corporate wrongdoing are deterred from bringing their claims altogether because arbitration can be too expensive and the results too risky for individual consumers or workers to undertake. The ban on class actions in particular makes it unlikely that many claims of corporate wrongdoing—particularly those that involve small sums for each in large groups of individuals—will ever be heard. As Justice Breyer opined, “Only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”68

In the few years since the Supreme Court upheld the use of class-action bans coupled with arbitration clauses, this type of composite clause has become ubiquitous in the small print governing employment, credit cards, cell phones, bank accounts, Internet providers, and countless other types of everyday transactions. The increase of arbitration clauses that require the losing party to pay the winning party’s costs, including attorney fees, will have an even more profound dampening effect on the ability of ordinary citizens to have their day in court.

What can be done to reverse these trends? Arbitration providers tout their voluntary efforts to ensure that arbitration provides due-process protections and unbiased decision-makers. However, while voluntary efforts by arbitration service providers and corporations to enhance due process in their arbitration procedures are desirable, they do not address the fundamental problem that the current law of arbitration allows the corporation to decide what type of arbitration procedure to impose on its employees or customers. Voluntary measures cannot prevent corporations that want to protect their interests—at the expense of employees and customers—from introducing provisions such as class-action waivers and loser-pay clauses that cut off access to justice. Nor can they adequately police against repeat-player bias.

Some courts and state legislatures have tried to oppose the radical change in the civil justice system, but to little avail. The Supreme Court has stated that the Federal Arbitration Act embodies a liberal federal policy in favor of arbitration, and that the act must be applied by state and federal courts. The Court repeatedly holds that the act overrides any state law or judicial doctrine that obstructs arbitration.

In addition to efforts at the state level, two federal agencies are attempting to curtail the use of arbitration by large corporations to deprive consumers and employees of their legal rights. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is considering a ban on class action waivers in mandatory arbitration in consumer financial transactions. By focusing on this issue, the CFPB has attracted a response from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has launched a well-funded campaign to curtail the CFPB’s powers and possibly defund it altogether. At the same time, the National Labor Relations Board is attempting to curtail the use of class-action-barring arbitration agreements in the employment setting on the grounds that such agreements interfere with the core principle of labor law—employees’ rights to engage in concerted action for mutual aid and protection. However, to date, the Courts of Appeals have rejected the NLRB’s reasoning.

Despite the laudable efforts of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the NLRB to protect consumers and employees from arbitrations, the legal trends suggest that agency action on this front will very likely be struck down. As a result, the only way to reverse these trends is to amend the statute itself.

The Arbitration Fairness Act currently before Congress is the best hope for stopping these trends and restoring justice to ordinary citizens. It is crucial that this act get the support of everyone who believes that consumer and employee rights are important and worth protecting.

Katherine V.W. Stone is the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Distinguished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law. Alexander J.S. Colvin is the Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution at Cornell University.


1. The history of the Arbitration Coalition is recounted in Ross v. American Express, 35 F. Supp. 3d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (failing to find antitrust liability despite the banks’ concerted efforts to promote class action barring arbitration clauses), aff’d sub nom, Ross v. Citigroup., ___ F.3d ___ (Case No. 14-1610, 2d. Cir., Nov. 19. 2015).

2. Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, 726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013).

3. Pub. L. No. 75-718, 52 Stat. 1060 (1938) (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219 (2006)).

4. 9 U.S.C. § 3. In order to come under the FAA, an agreement must involve commerce and include a written arbitration clause. 9 U.S.C. § 2.

5. The history and vision behind the enactment of the FAA is presented in Katherine V.W. Stone“Rustic Justice: Community and Coercion Under the Federal Arbitration Act,” North Carolina Law Review 77: 931 (1999).

6. 9 U.S.C. Sec. 2.

7. The holding in Southland was reinforced and expanded in Perry v. Thomas in 1987 482 U.S. 483 (1987).

8. See Katherine V.W. Stone, “Procedure, Substance, and Power: Collective Litigation and Arbitration of Employment Rights,” UCLA Law Review Discourse: 61, 164 (2013).

9. See e.g., O’Conner et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., (N.D. Calif. 2015); Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., (N.D. Calif., 2015).

10. There is another controversial issue that arises when parties are precluded from bringing a class action by virtue of an enforceable class-action waiver and they seek to arbitrate their claim on a class-wide basis. Courts agree that parties are free to specify whether their arbitration clause permits a class arbitration proceeding and if they do so, their intent will be controlling. However, in the majority of situations, an arbitration clause doesn’t say anything about the availability of class-wide arbitrations. Courts have been divided on what should be the default rule when a contract is silent about the availability of class arbitration. See, generally, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010). Courts are also divided on the predicate issue of whether a court or an arbitrator should decide whether the parties’ agreement did or did not intend to permit class arbitration.

11. 563 U.S. 333 (2011).

12. Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 584 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2009), rev’d sub nom. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740.

13. Id. at 1752.

14. See Tory v. First Premier Bank et al., No. 10-C-7326, 2011 WL 4478437 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2011); Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., 132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517 (Ct. App. 2011); see also Jerett Yan, “A Lunatic’s Guide to Suing for $30: Class Action Arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act and Unconscionability After AT&T v. Concepcion,” Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law: 32, 551, 559–61 (citing cases).

15. See, e.g., Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 785 F.Supp.2d 394 (2011) (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir., 2013).

16. Id. at 640.

17. Id. at 637.

18. Id. at 628.

19. See, e.g., Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 768 F. Supp. 2d 547, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding that a clause barring class actions was unenforceable because it would require plaintiffs to forgo their substantive rights). But see Banus v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 757 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (enforcing class action waiver).

20. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

21. See, e.g., Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2005); Carter v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., 362 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2004); Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2002). But see Raniere v. Citigroup, 827 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2003) (refusing to enforce waiver of class action in a Fair Labor Standards Act action).

22. 133 S. Ct. 594 (2013).

23. In re Am. Express Merchs.’ Litig., 554 F.3d 300, 320 (2d Cir. 2009), vacated sub nom. Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 130 S. Ct. 2401 (2010), remanded to sub nom. In re Am. Express Merchs.’ Litig, 634 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2011), aff’d on reh’g, 667 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. granted sub nom. Am. Express Co., 133 S. Ct. 594.

24. Slip Op at 6-7 (Opinion of the Court).

25. Id.

26. Slip Op at 1 (J.Kagan dissenting).

27. Id. at 5.

28. See Yan, supra note 14 at 552 (noting that “[t]he unavailability of the class proceedings would have dire ramifications on employees seeking to vindicate their rights”).

29. The lower court opinion is at 936 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (ND Calif. 2013).

30. The lower court opinion is at 225 Cal.App.4th 338 (2014).

31. Stats. 2003, ch. 906, § 1

32. The lower court opinion is at 173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289.

33. See Nanavati v. Adecco USA, Inc., 2015 WL 1738152 (N.D. Calif. 2015), summarizing California lower court PAGA waiver cases after Iskanian.

34. Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, slip. op. No. 13-55184 (9th Cir., September 28, 2015), reported in National Law Journal, October 5, 2015.

35. See Alexander J.S. Colvin, “Empirical Research on Employment Arbitration: Clarity amidst the Sound and Fury?” Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 11(2): 405–447 (2008).

36. Although there is no public registry listing all the companies that require mandatory arbitration of their employees, the disclosure statements that arbitration service providers are required to make public include the names of the companies involved. The most complete and extensive case disclosures currently available are those provided by the American Arbitration Association:

37. See Peter Feuille and Denise R. Chachere, “Looking Fair and Being Fair: Remedial Voice Procedures in Nonunion Workplaces.” Journal of Management 21: 27–36 at 31 (1995).

38. Although the GAO survey initially found that 9.9 percent of respondents had adopted mandatory arbitration, when the agency followed up with the respondents to obtain copies of their procedures, a number indicated that they did not actually have mandatory employment arbitration and had made errors in their responses. When that correction is made, only 7.6 percent of the respondents remain as mandatory arbitration adopters. See General Accounting Office, Employment Discrimination: Most Private Sector Employers Use Alternative Dispute Resolution, GAO/HEHS 95-150, (1995).

39. Alexander J.S. Colvin, “Empirical Research on Employment Arbitration: Clarity Amidst the Sound and Fury?” Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal: 11(2): 405–447 (2008).

40. “Union Members–2014,” Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015).

41. See generally, Sarah Randolph Cole, “Of Babies and Bathwater: The Arbitration Fairness Act and the Supreme Court’s Recent Arbitration Jurisprudence.” Houston Law Review, 48(3): 457–506 at 471–476 (2011).

42. Theodore Eisenberg, Geoffrey Miller, and Emily Sherwin, “Arbitration’s Summer Soldiers,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 41(4): 871–896 at 886 (2008).

43. Katherine V.W. Stone, “Signing Away Our Rights,” The American Prospect (April 2011) 20.

44. Katherine V.W. Stone, “Procedure, Substance, and Power: Collective Litigation and Arbitration of Employment Rights,” UCLA Law Review Discourse 61: 164–181 (2013).

45. Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, The 2015 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt Class Action Survey: Best Practices in Reducing Risk and Managing Cost in Class Action Litigation.

46. Alexander J.S. Colvin and Mark D. Gough, Understanding the Professional Practices and Decision-Making of Employment Arbitrators. Report to the National Academy of Arbitrators Research and Education Fund (2015).

47. Notes: All damage amounts are converted to 2005 dollar amounts to facilitate comparison.

The “Colvin” dataset draws on all employment arbitration cases based on employer-promulgated procedures administered by the American Arbitration Association from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007. Data are assembled by Colvin from reports filed by the AAA under California Code arbitration service provider reporting requirements. Alexander J.S. Colvin, “An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8(1): 1–23 at 5 (2011).

The “Eisenberg and Hill” litigation statistics are reported in Eisenberg, Theodore, and Elizabeth Hill “Arbitration and Litigation of Employment Claims: An Empirical Comparison.” Dispute Resolution Journal 58(4): 44–55 (2003).

48. Theodore Eisenberg, “Four Decades of Federal Civil Rights Litigation.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12: 4–28 (2015).

49. Alexander J.S. Colvin and Mark D. Gough, “Individual Employment Rights Arbitration in the United States: Actors and Outcomes.” ILR Review 68(5): 1019–1042 (2015).

50. Laura Beth Nielsen, Robert L. Nelson and Ryon Lancaster, “Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7(2): 175–201 (2010).

51. Colvin and Gough (2015), supra note 49.

52. Alexander J.S. Colvin and Mark D. Gough, Comparing Mandatory Arbitration and Litigation: Access, Process, and Outcomes. Report to the Robert L. Habush Endowment of the American Association for Justice (2014).

53. Nielsen et al. (2010) supra at 200.

54. Colvin and Gough (2015) supra at 1030.

55. Marc Galanter, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9(1): 95–160 (1974).

56. The problem of repeat-player effects in mandatory arbitration was first raised in a series of studies by Lisa Blomgrem Amsler (formerly Bingham), e.g., Lisa B. Bingham, “Employment Arbitration: The Repeat Player Effect,” Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 1(1): 1–38 (1997); Lisa B. Bingham, “On Repeat Players, Adhesive Contracts, and the Use of Statistics in Judicial Review of Employment Arbitration Awards.” McGeorge Law Review 29(2): 223–259 (1998).

57. See Alexander J.S. Colvin and Kelly Pike, “Saturns and Rickshaws Revisited: What Kind of Employment Arbitration System has Developed?” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 29(1): 59–83 at 70 (2014).

58. See Colvin and Gough (2015), supra note 69.

59. Ibid at 1033–34.

60. Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, “In Arbitration, a ‘Privatization of the Justice System,’” New York Times, Nov. 1, 2015, p. A1.

61. See: Richard A. Bales and Jason N.W. Plowman, “Compulsory Arbitration as Part of a Broader Dispute Resolution Process: The Anheuser-Busch Example” Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal, 26(1): 1–32 (2008).

62. Alexander J.S. Colvin, “Adoption and Use of Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Nonunion Workplace.” Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, 13: 80–94 (2004).

63. Joel Rosenblatt, “Uber Loses Bid to Force Arbitration on California Driver,” BloombergBusiness, Sept. 21, 2015.

64. Carolyn Said, “Judge Rejects Uber Forced-Arbitration Clause; 2 Cases Proceed,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 10, 2015.

65. O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al.: Mohamed v. Uber Technologies

66. Section 3(a), Proposed “Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015,” H.R. 2087.

67. Section 2, AFA.

68. Justice Breyer, dissenting in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.