President Joe Biden is expected to sign the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.
Once signed into law, the bipartisan legislation will invalidate existing forced arbitration provisions and provide employees who complain of workplace sexual harassment and sexual assault the choice of pursuing their claims in court rather than private arbitration. The law also invalidates joint-action waivers, which prohibit individuals to the agreement from participating in joint, class or collective actions.
Specifically, the act targets pre-dispute arbitration provisions, which historically have been utilized by employers in contracts to resolve disputes related to employment matters. The legislation does not preclude parties from agreeing to arbitrate a dispute regarding sexual harassment or sexual assault once it arises.
Proponents of arbitration provisions favor controlling the forum, streamlining litigation and relying on experienced arbitrators to resolve issues. Critics of such provisions cite financial imbalance between workers and employers and complain that bad actors are able to shield allegations from becoming part of the public record.
While the law is a win for workers, the scope of the new legislation is limited only to disputes involving claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Employers will retain the ability to require pre-arbitration provisions for other disputes arising out of the business relationship, such as compensation or termination.
If you have any questions regarding the impact of this legislation on existing agreements, or you would like a review of your policies and handbooks, please contact any of the members of Plunkett Cooney’s Labor & Employment Practice Group today.
Add a comment
Subscribe
RSSTopics
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Agreement
- At Will Employment
- Wage & Hour
- Employment Discrimination
- Minimum Wage
- National Labor Relations Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Human Resources
- Noncompete Agreements
- Civil Rights
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Contract Employees
- COVID-19
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Coronavirus
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Tax Law
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Regulatory Law
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Federal Trade Commission
- OSHA Issues
- Title VII
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Harassment
- Contracts
- Transgender Issues
- Accommodations
- First Amendment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Public Education
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Cannabis
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Sexual Harassment
- Garnishments
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- RICO
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Diversity
- Union Organizing & Relations
Recent Updates
- Federal Court Throws out DOL’s Attempt to Rewrite White Collar Overtime Rules
- Civil Rights Litigation Filed by Christian Employers Gets New Life Following Federal Appellate Court Ruling
- Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Wage Decision
- Judge Strikes Down Federal Ban on Non-compete Agreements
- Michigan Employers Can Legally Resist Union Organizing Efforts
- Michigan Supreme Court Decision Reinstates Previous Versions of Wage Laws
- Union Power in Michigan: Is it Real or Imagined?
- Employers Should act Now to Address Rising DOL Salary Thresholds for Exempt Employees
- Is This the end of the Employee Non-Compete Clause?
- Tax Considerations When Settling an Employment Claim 2.0