Originally from:
AAA Handbook on Employment Arbitration and ADR - 2nd Edition - Hardcover
AAA Handbook on Employment Arbitration and ADR - 2nd Edition - Electronic
Preview Page - CHAPTER 39
14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT: U.S. SUPREME
COURT REVISITS, CLARIFIES AND REAFFIRMS
MANDATORY ARBITRATION
Stuart L. Bass∗
I. Introduction
One of the most controversial issues affecting employment law today
is the use of mandatory arbitration to resolve workplace disputes and
claims. In recent years employees have required as a condition of
employment that employees must agree to arbitrate claims or disputes
arising from their jobs, including claims based on statutory rights against
discrimination, rather than having their day in court.
In more recent years, as the number of employment discrimination
claims brought under federal statute had increased significantly,
employers have had to deal with enormous time consumption and
expense in litigating these claims while further translates into disruption
in the workplace, lowering of employee morale and injury to the
employers’ reputation.1
An ever increasing frustration and dissatisfaction with juries and the
court system itself in commercial and business litigation have brought on
new attitude within the business community toward alternatives to the
traditional judicial forum. In an effort to avoid or minimize the expense
Stuart L. Bass is a Professor of Business Law/Legal Studies in Business at the Frank
G. Zarb School of Business at Hofstra University. Professor Bass also serves as a mediator
and arbitrator on numerous panels including the New York Public Employment Relation
Board, New York State Employment Relations Board, FINRA (formerly NASD Dispute
Resolution), Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service and several local and state civil
service and law enforcement panels.
