Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

In accordance with its long-standing opposition to the use of mandatory arbitration in employment disputes, the Equal Employment opportunity Commission recently issued a detailed policy statement attacking the imposition of mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment. The statement, intended to serve as an internal guidance for EEOC field offices, characterizes compulsory arbitration as contrary to the fundamental principles of the federal civilrights laws and instructs the field offices to process claims regardless of whether the charging party has agreed to arbitrate employment disputes; in effect, ignoring the presence of mandatory- arbitration agreements and the continual court approval of such agreements.

The EEOC, however, takes much too partisan an approach in its critique of mandatory arbitration. For example, the EEOC completely overlooks the many advantages mandatory arbitration offers both sides in an employment dispute, including greater speed, more accessibility, lower cost, heightened privacy, increased fairness through the submission of disputes to a qualified impartial party, and enhanced morale because of ease in raising and resolving disputes. Mandatory arbitration, when properly conducted, is nothing like the meritless, biased system of dispute resolution envisioned by the EEOC. The EEOC also glosses over the many serious problems encountered in the judicial forum—the EEOC’s preferred approach to settling employment disputes.