{"id":1528,"date":"2019-07-23T06:00:44","date_gmt":"2019-07-23T06:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uniontrack.com\/blog\/?p=1528"},"modified":"2019-07-23T11:30:16","modified_gmt":"2019-07-23T11:30:16","slug":"forced-arbitration-protests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/uniontrack.com\/blog\/forced-arbitration-protests","title":{"rendered":"How Recent Protests Could Spell the End of Forced Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ken Green
\nCEO\/Founder
\nUnionTrack, Inc.<\/a><\/p>\n

Workers in the gaming and technology industries are starting to flex their collective muscles to push back against labor practices that suppress their rights in the workplace.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A wave of dissension in several companies is shifting the dynamic between employees and employers, forcing companies to reevaluate commonly accepted workplace practices that put company needs ahead of workers\u2019 needs. For example, game developers are challenging the issue of crunch time<\/a>, which requires workers to work 60- or even 80-hour weeks in the run-up to the release of a game.<\/p>\n

Another issue that has been pushed to the forefront is forced arbitration. Forced arbitration puts employees at a disadvantage because it \u201cdenies individuals access to our country’s civil justice system when employers violate our nation’s employment and civil rights laws,\u201d explains Laura Flegel<\/a>, legislative and public policy director for the National Employment Lawyers Association.<\/p>\n

At companies such as Riot Games and Google, mandatory arbitration has recently been used to keep sexual harassment claims and disputes out of the public spotlight and in private arbitration. Workers at these companies are calling foul.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Why the Issue of Forced Arbitration Is Important<\/h2>\n

More than half of America\u2019s Fortune 100 companies impose forced arbitration clauses on employees, reports Imre S. Szalai<\/a>, professor of social justice at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. The closed-door, employer-led nature of forced arbitration puts employees in a defensive position from the beginning when they have grievances against their employers.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause of forced arbitration, critical wage claims and civil rights claims\u2014which can deeply impact vulnerable workers\u2014may never be heard in a public, open court, where employee plaintiffs are guaranteed important procedural protections,\u201d concludes Szalai.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s only if they decide to bring a claim forward. Alexander J.S. Colvin<\/a>, associate dean for academic affairs, diversity, and faculty development at Cornell University\u2019s ILR School, notes in a study for the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) that mandatory arbitration actually suppresses worker claims because workers are reticent to even attempt to fight the battle they know is lost.<\/p>\n

\u201cEmployers adopting mandatory employment arbitration have been successful in coming up with a mechanism that effectively reduces their chance of being subject to any liability for employment law violations to very low levels,\u201d reports Colvin.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A key reason for this is that attorneys who represent employees are reluctant to even take on claims cases that are subject to forced arbitration because they are less likely to win those cases. Workers with grievance cases are often left without resources to bring lawsuits forward. Further, workers are without much support in challenging forced arbitration in the courts thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows companies to enforce it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In Epic Systems Corp. v Lewis, the court ruled 5\u20134 that companies can require employees to relinquish their right to sue on both an individual basis and as a collective. A report, co-authored by researchers from the Center for Popular Democracy<\/a> and the EPI, contend that because of this ruling, by 2024 more than 80 percent of private-sector nonunion workers will be denied access to courts through forced arbitration clauses.<\/p>\n

The best option left open to workers to fight the practice is to convince their employers to drop mandatory arbitration.<\/p>\n

\"Angry<\/p>\n

Workers at Riot Games Are Fighting Forced Arbitration<\/h2>\n

Employees at video game development company Riot Games have been actively protesting the company\u2019s forced arbitration policy.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The conflict started with a story by Cecilia D’Anastasio<\/a> at Kotaku that alleged ongoing sexual discrimination and harassment abuses against the women who work at Riot Games. A number of former and current employees almost immediately sued the company for sexist practices.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The company responded in late April 2019 by forcing two of those workers into arbitration. The effects of this decision were almost instantaneous, setting off a chain of events that is reverberating throughout the company and industry:<\/p>\n