Rethinking Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Disputes

For a number of reasons discussed below, employers truly interested in turning back the clock on the 1991 amendments to Title VII would be well served to cease using mandatory arbitration agreements and instead have their employees execute waivers of their right to jury trials. It is juries that employers generally fear, not the courts themselves. Prior to the 1991 amendments, employers felt no imperative to exempt themselves from the civil justice system available in the courts. Thus, employers do not now need to flee the court system altogether in order to avoid jury trials, and there is certainly no reason for them to require their employees to agree to the wholesale replacement of court litigation with mandatory arbitration.

18 minute readMay 29, 2007 at 12:56 PM
By
Karla Grossenbacher
Rethinking Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Disputes

In 1991, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 to permit employees to demand jury trials for alleged violations of the statute. Before the 1991 act, Title VII plaintiffs were not entitled to a trial by jury and were limited to remedial damages,

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Landlord & Tenant Law

Letter Agreement Between Landlord and Tenant Did Not Extinguish GuarantyTreble Damage Award Upheld; Landlord Failed to Establish Overcharge Was Not WillfulDenying Access to Landlord Constituted Breach Entitling Landlord to PossessionTenant Entitled to Yellowstone Injunction With Respect to Taxes and Sewer Charges

March 01, 2026

New York’s New AI Laws for Posthumous Right of Publicity and for Advertising Transparency

New York is one of the first states to adopt laws to regulate artificial intelligence use in advertising and to strengthen post-mortem publicity rights regarding AI-generated replicas and “synthetic performers.” Given the state’s role as a bellwether for consumer-protection and advertising regulation, these new laws, combined with the state’s broader AI legislative framework, represent a shift toward transparency, consent and accountability.

March 01, 2026

State Age Verification Mandates Could Redefine COPPA Risk for General Audience Apps

State app store age verification regimes do more than reallocate responsibility between platforms and developers. They create a new data supply chain for age knowledge, one that can move COPPA questions from “do we ask age?” to “what do we do when the platform tells us?” The teams that handle this best will treat platform age signals as sensitive compliance inputs: minimize them, tightly control where they flow, and design product behavior so that minors do not trigger unnecessary collection or disclosure.

March 01, 2026

The Power of One: How Leading Firms Are Rethinking Revenue Operations

The firms leading right now chose to ask what would become possible if they managed the entire revenue lifecycle — from invoice generation to cash receipt — in one place, and what AI could actually accomplish with complete data instead of partial feeds. That is the Power of One.

March 01, 2026

Using AI Without Waiving Privilege: Lessons from United States v. Heppner

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), United States v. Heppner, has generated outsized commentary suggesting that the use of generative AI tools may jeopardize attorney-client privilege. A closer reading shows something far less dramatic.

March 01, 2026