Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution
Abstract
Part I of this article will briefly outline the relevant federal statutes to provide the necessary foundation for understanding the issue involved in Waffle House . Specifically, this paper will discuss Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (“EEOC Act”), the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“1991 Act”), the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ ADA ”). Part II will examine the development of the relevant case law that set the parameters for the current debate, including the conflicting decisions in three Courts of Appeals cases that prompted Supreme Court review. Part III will critique the Court’s opinion in Waffle House by exposing the holes in the Court’s reasoning and will propose an alternative model for analyzing the issue raised in Waffle House . Part IV will discuss the arguments that are advanced both in support of and against pre-dispute arbitration agreements. Finally, Part V will offer a proposal, suggesting that Congress should act immediately to reach a more practical solution, one that would redefine the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC’s”) role and power in the context of such “mandatory,” pre-dispute arbitration agreements.
Disciplines
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Law
Recommended Citation
Craig Hanlon,
Reason over Rhetoric: The Case for Enforcing PreDispute Agreements to Arbitrate Employment Discrimination Claims,
5
Cardozo J. Conflict Resol.
(2003).
Available at:
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cjcr/vol5/iss1/2