Another question is what the scope of the arbitration program should be. Given the costs associated with the arbitration process, some employers may wish to limit an arbitration program to the wage and hour claims most likely to be invoked as class actions. In addition, current federal and national legislation precludes the mandatory reconciliation of sexual harassment and other claims under Title VII. Some Department of Defense contractors have long been barred from enforcing such agreements, and New York State has just passed a law to prohibit private employers from requiring arbitration for sexual harassment rights. While state laws of this type may be discouraged by the Federal Arbitration Act, federal bans have been proposed and employers may want to completely circumvent the controversy by only considering arbitration agreements for wage time. This would allow discrimination rights, usually formulated on an individual basis, to be excluded from the arbitration programme if the additional costs of arbitration exceed the confidentiality advantage of the arbitration. Of course, it is possible that binding arbitration agreements and class action waiver statements may not be suitable for all employers or use with any employee. Although generally considered a benefit to employers, private arbitration can mean that solving a problem with one employee does not engage, or even affect, the resolution of the same problem with other employees. As a result, some employers may want to have a court ruling on the legality of a given policy or practice, so that it has greater certainty about future implementation.
Small businesses may not see the benefit of negotiating each employee`s dispute separately in a separate procedure, if the company employs only a handful of people – meaning that, in some situations, handling cases involving multiple complainants could be less costly if the number of employees is relatively small. Employers will no doubt ask: what does this decision mean for me? The answer depends on many factors and, as with the arbitration agreements themselves, there is no one answer that works for everyone. Starting with the 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. The Supreme Court has blessed the validity and applicability of non-class statements in arbitration agreements. This was followed by decisions in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood and American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, where the Supreme Court has formed case law that has made class dropouts unassailable in the commercial context. However, as no case of class disputes was in the context of employment before the Supreme Court, there were uncertainties as to the ability to oppose classes in compulsory labor agreements.
. . .