Protecting against Employment Discrimination: The Ninth Circuit's Interpretation of Mandatory Arbitration of Title VII Claims - Renteria v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

Authors

Todd C. Stanton

Abstract

The growing trend toward reliance upon arbitration, rather than judicial adjudication, has resulted in a reformation regarding the resolution of disputes within the employment industry. It has become a standard practice of many employers to require that employees sign employment agreements before they are allowed to work. Recently, these types of agreements have begun to require that employees resolve any disputes or claims against their employers through arbitration rather than judicial adjudication. Unfortunately, the average employee is often unaware of the binding nature of these agreements until a dispute actually arises with his or her employer. The Ninth Circuit has sought to protect employees from these types of .agreements, and preserve Title VII judicial remedies, by refusing to enforce such arbitration provisions when the employee does not have knowledge or notice of them. This Note will examine the Ninth Circuit's unique interpretation of these mandatory arbitration agreements and the possible advantages and disadvantages of requiring employees to arbitrate their Title VII claims against employers. Furthermore, it will explore Renteria's impact on that apparently continuing interpretation.

Recommended Citation

Todd C. Stanton, Protecting against Employment Discrimination: The Ninth Circuit's Interpretation of Mandatory Arbitration of Title VII Claims - Renteria v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 1998 J. Disp. Resol. (1998)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1998/iss1/9