Originially from: World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR)

Arbitration Benefits Both Parties
By Bettina B. Plevan, a partner at New York's Proskauer Rose
Goetz & Mendelsohn specializing in employment litigation. Howard Z.
Robbins, an associate at the firm, assisted in the preparation of this
article.
An increasing number of employers are seeking to require
prospective and current employees to arbitrate employment-related claims,
including claims of discrimination. There has been much debate about the
benefits (and disadvantages) of arbitrating such claims, as well as
extensive litigation over the enforceability of such agreements. However,
it cannot seriously be questioned that agreements to arbitrate employment
disputes are valid, even when imposed as a condition of employment, and
that they serve the interests of all concerned.
The Supreme Court's decision in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson
Lane Corp. opened the door to broad enforcement of these arbitration
clauses. The lower courts, supported by strong policy statements by
Congress favoring arbitration, have since confirmed the validity of predispute
agreements to arbitrate.
The practical benefits of arbitration have also proven to be equally
advantageous to both parties. The costs of pretrial discovery and trial are
reduced for both through arbitration. The relative speed of the arbitration
process and the neutrality of arbitrators ensures that the important goals of
the anti-discrimination statutes are met and that employees do not forfeit
substantive rights by proceeding in that forum. Furthermore, use of
alternate dispute resolution mechanisms eases the burden on an
overwhelmed judicial system.
For these reasons employers should, with confidence and in good
conscience, be able to bind employees to agreements to arbitrate
employment disputes.
"Gilmer" and the FAA
In Gilmer, the Supreme Court held that a claim arising under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was subject to
compulsory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), pursuant
to an agreement in a securities registration application. The Court found
that neither the text nor legislative history of the ADEA precluded
arbitration of ADEA claims and that there was no inconsistency between