Arbitrating Work Place Claims

[Venus]

I read the article.

It seems to me that a revision of the arbitration process is needed. Perhaps judicial review of an arbitration decision should be granted upon a showing of one or more good cause elements, such as bias, thus opening the door to adjudication in a court of equity.

Decisions that curtail tort suits, frivolous civil rights suits and judicial activism are a good thing, in my opinion.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Hmmm . . . if you want this job, sign away all your legal rights so we can screw ya real good when it becomes expedient for us to do so.
*********
Volume 147, No. 056 Wednesday, March 21, 2001
Page 0001
Employers can force arbitration: court
by ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON -- Employers can force workers to take job-related disputes to arbitration rather than to court, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a decision that will have broad effects on American workplaces.
Agreements to arbitrate workplace disputes are enforceable even if the employer required the worker to sign the agreement in order to be hired, the court said. Ruling 5-4 for Circuit City Stores, the justices said a gay former employee cannot sue over alleged harassment at work.

Arbitration has increasingly been used to resolve a wide variety of disputes including employment discrimination claims. Supporters of arbitration say it is less complicated and less expensive than a lawsuit.

But employees' advocates say the process can be tilted toward employers and that workers forfeit certain rights. Appeals often are limited, damages can be capped and fact-finding can be restricted.

A number of federal appeals courts had ruled that employers could require arbitration of workplace disputes. But a San Francisco-based appeals court disagreed in 1999 and refused to enforce Circuit City's arbitration agreement.
* * *

Click here for the full story (http://www.lawbulletin.com/art_cdlb.cfm)