Mandatory Arbitration and Title VII: Can Employees Ever See Their Rights Vindicated through Statutory Causes of Action - Metz v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & (and) Smith

Authors

Penelope Hopper

Abstract

Through the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Congress has granted American employees an increased number of potential statutory causes of action. At the same time, litigation has decreased. with a rise in the popularity of alternative dispute resolution.' Thus, it is no surprise that many modem employment contracts require employees to stipulate a dispute resolution forum through which any future legal conflict may be resolved, usually at the bequest of the prospective employer. The legal trend is to enforce mandatory arbitration and mediation clauses when a statutory cause of action is at issue or the employer has full say over the terms of the "voluntary" contractual agreement. Can employer-mandated arbitration truly protect the rights of minority employees and applicants as intended by the drafters of Title VII? This Note examines that question by evaluating how the Tenth Circuit interpreted the most recent United States Supreme Court findings on the issue.

Recommended Citation

Penelope Hopper, Mandatory Arbitration and Title VII: Can Employees Ever See Their Rights Vindicated through Statutory Causes of Action - Metz v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & (and) Smith, 1995 J. Disp. Resol. (1995)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1995/iss2/4