Another Way for Employees to Win
By: Source: AARP Bulletin Today Date Posted: 2003-06-26 13:56:23
Workers who sign away their rights to sue their employers for discrimination still have some chance that their cases may one day be heard in court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can sue an employer on a worker's behalf even if the worker and employer have agreed to submit workplace disputes to arbitration. The EEOC is not bound by such contracts, the high court ruled.
"The Supreme Court recognized what Congress intended when it established the EEOC: that it must have the power to enforce civil rights laws," says AARP lawyer Tom Osborne. "Had the decision gone the other way, the agency would have been stripped of its clout."
Know What You're Signing
Recent court decisions have given companies the green light to require workers to submit disputes to arbitration instead of litigation.
Be on the lookout for arbitration clauses in any documents you're asked to sign, and be sure you understand the consequences, advises Robert Meade of the American Arbitration Association.
"Weigh the pros and cons," he says. Weigh how much you want that particular job against how important it may be to you to retain the right to take the employer to court in case of discrimination.
AARP filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the EEOC.
The case involved Eric Scott Baker, who in 1994 was a short-order cook at a Waffle House restaurant in West Columbia, S.C. After two weeks on the job, he had a seizure at work and shortly thereafter was fired.
Like other employees of Waffle House, Inc., Baker had agreed that any grievance he had against the company would be resolved through arbitration, a dispute resolution system that bypasses the judicial system.
Buoyed by recent court decisions, some employers have begun requiring workers to waive their right to jury trials—including potential class action suits—and submit job-related disputes to arbitration instead. Some companies insert such agreements into job application forms, and, workers' advocates say, job seekers have little choice but to sign on the dotted line.
About 6 percent of all American workers are covered by workplace arbitration agreements, notes Robert Meade, senior vice president of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Proponents of arbitration say it offers a quick, cost-effective alternative to litigation.
KEEPING RESULTS FAIR
But when employers impose mandatory arbitration on workers as a condition of employment, the results can be "brutally unfair," claims Cliff Palefsky, a lawyer in San Francisco and co-founder of the National Employment Lawyers Association.
Compared to a lawsuit, Palefsky contends, arbitration gives plaintiffs less access to evidence in the employer's control, less chance of being awarded punitive damages and no opportunity to have the case heard in an open courtroom. Moreover, he charges, arbitrators may feel pressured to render decisions that will please (or at least won't alienate) companies that may hire them again.
AAA's Meade counters that reputable arbitrators operate by a code of ethics that requires them to disclose any conflicts of interest.
Besides, arbitration provides a venue for workers whose complaints would never make it to court: Only 13 percent of workers' claims involve civil rights, Meade says, and plaintiffs' lawyers are interested chiefly in those that could win big awards.
Baker, the former Waffle House cook, never tried to arbitrate his grievance with his employer. Instead, he filed a claim with the EEOC, alleging that, in firing him, the company had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Of about 80,000 claims filed with the EEOC every year, only about 400 end up in court. Baker's case was among the half of 1 percent that do.
THE EEOC ENTERS THE CASE
As with other claims it pursues, the EEOC first tried to settle with Waffle House out of court. When those attempts failed, the EEOC sued the company, seeking not only a court order requiring Waffle House to stop discriminating, but an award on Baker's behalf, including back pay and compensatory and punitive damages.
An appeals court ruled the EEOC had no right to seek damages for a victim who had agreed not to take his claim to court. But in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, saying the EEOC was not bound by a contract to which it was not a party.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the EEOC is "the master of its own case."
Justice Clarence Thomas, who once headed the EEOC, wrote the dissenting opinion. He claimed the EEOC should not be allowed to "do on behalf of an employee that which an employee has agreed not to do for himself."
Share
preview