Is It the Real Thing: How Coke's One-Way Binding Arbitration May Bridge the Divide between Litigation and Arbitration

Authors

Suzette M. Malveaux

Abstract

This article is comprised of six parts. Part I introduces the topic. Part II examines the growing prevalence of compulsory pre-dispute arbitration agreements in employment contracts and the problems with such agreements. Part III describes the challenges employees face in the federal court system: higher pleading thresholds for intentional discrimination claims, the federal judiciary's current antagonism toward employee claims of discrimination (as demonstrated by recent empirical studies), and a beleaguered EEOC. Part IV describes how Coke adopted one-way binding arbitration and explores the ways in which this alternative is preferable to both mandatory arbitration and civil litigation for employees, employers, and the greater legal community. Part V discusses some limitations of one-way binding arbitration and the context in which it has the most potential. Finally, Part VI concludes by recommending that employers consider adopting one-way binding arbitration with sufficient procedural safeguards as a way of maximizing employee choice, empowering the company to resolve workplace issues internally, and bridging the divide between litigation and arbitration.

Recommended Citation

Suzette M. Malveaux, Is It the Real Thing: How Coke's One-Way Binding Arbitration May Bridge the Divide between Litigation and Arbitration, 2009 J. Disp. Resol. (2009)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2009/iss1/4