Are Arbitrations As Bad As The New York Times Claims And, If Not, When Can They Be Enforced By Employers In Washington?

The New York Times just ran a series of articles discussing the prevalence of arbitration agreements in America. The articles criticized the arbitration agreements that corporations require individuals to sign, including arbitration agreements with employees, citing a lack of bargaining power. According to the Times, the prevalence of arbitration agreements constitutes nothing less than the usurpation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to jury trial. The articles were also critical of recent Supreme Court decisions upholding arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. While not saying so explicitly, the articles' message appears to be that these decisions resulted from a concerted and well-funded campaign by corporations and a Supreme Court sympathetic to their interests.

Truth is, for many employment cases, arbitration is good for both the employer and the employee. Having a case heard by a professional who is trained and experienced in the messy job of resolving complicated employment disputes can be better for both parties than leaving the matter in the hands of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty. And the fact that arbitrations (unlike court proceedings) are not a matter of public record (and so cannot be found on the internet) may be good not only for the employer accused of discrimination or...