Going Dutch: Should Employees Have to Split the Costs of Arbitration in Disputes Arising from Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements - Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.

Authors

John F. Crawford

Abstract

Employers often require their employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, obligating employees to submit their disputes with employers to binding arbitration. These agreements may include terms, such as cost splitting provisions, that may be advantageous to the employer, but extremely limiting to an employee seeking to enforce her statutory rights. The United States Supreme Court has yet to set out a clear position about whether an employee, by signed agreement, can be required to pay all or part of the arbitration fees and costs when the employee submits a statutory claim to arbitration. Federal district courts have set out different standards, but there has yet to be a consensus in approaches to the issue. In the instant case, the Sixth Circuit closely examines the different approaches to determining whether cost-splitting provisions in mandatory arbitration agreements are enforceable and then sets forth its own standard.

Recommended Citation

John F. Crawford, Going Dutch: Should Employees Have to Split the Costs of Arbitration in Disputes Arising from Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements - Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 2004 J. Disp. Resol. (2004)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2004/iss1/16