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.
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.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2009/iss1/4