Is The Eeoc Bound By A Mandatory Arbitration Agreement

In the 2-1 vote in favor of repealing the policy statement, the EEOC cited several Supreme Court decisions in labor and employment cases contrary to its arbitration policy. Similarly, the EEOC noted several cases related to arbitration proceedings outside the employment context, which nevertheless „implicit“ the positions contained in its policy statement. It is difficult to know the practical implications of the EEOC`s repeal of the policy statement. However, the impact may be limited, as it only reconciles the EEOC`s position with the existing precedent. However, it could reduce the number of EEOC investigations resulting from the applicability of arbitration agreements. In 1997, the Commission adopted the Policy Statement on mandatory conciliation of disputes relating to discrimination at work as a condition of employment (10). July 1997) (policy statement). Since its adoption, the Supreme Court has ruled that agreements to settle labour law disputes are applicable to disputes between employers and employees under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S.

105 (2001). In other arbitration cases it has decided since 1997, the Tribunal has dismissed doubts about the use of the arbitral tribunal, both within and outside the context of discrimination rights in the workplace. These decisions are contrary to the 1997 policy statement. Because Supreme Court jurisprudence directly supports the legality and enforcement of labour agreements, many employers have implemented arbitration programs aimed at reducing the time and cost of resolving disputes with workers, in a private forum and not in federal or regional proceedings. From a practical point of view, the repeal of the policy statement by the EEOC is likely to have little or no influence on how the courts evaluate binding arbitration agreements, given that the courts must follow the law established by the Court, and not the policy statements issued by the federal authorities. Although it was stated in the declaration of resignation that the EEOC retains the right to conduct disputes which it considers to be in the public interest and that it can still challenge the enforceability of arbitration agreements which it deems invalid, the repeal of the Directive offers employers additional assurances that efforts to implement alternative methods of dispute resolution with workers, in court. . . .