Last week, The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law and Policy published a paper entitled “The Widespread Use of Workplace Arbitration Among America’s Top 100 Companies”.  The research was aimed at discovering how prevalent, and therefore limiting, arbitration agreements are for individuals employed by America’s largest companies. Professor Imre Szalai of the Loyola New Orleans College of Law, who authored the paper, determined that arbitration agreements are both commonplace and extremely limiting to employees.

Many companies impose certain restrictions on its employees by various means such as company policies and employment contracts.  Professor Szalai found that, among the Fortune 100 companies studied, 80 of them have used arbitration agreements in connection with workplace-related disputes since 2010.

In the event of workplace misconduct, arbitration agreements limit a person’s ability to bring his or her claim in court.  Often, these agreements set out a procedure for handling these disputes.  There are various versions of these procedures, but they generally set out a course for an investigation and determination, possibly followed by an opportunity for appeal.  Finally, there is always a clause forcing arbitration in the event that the issue isn’t resolved.  This means that a person’s ability to bring a claim in a court of general jurisdiction is limited.  In general, the decision made by the neutral arbitrator is final.

This is an issue that I run across from time to time. An individual who has an excellent case is barred from bringing a charge of discrimination or a petition for damages because he or she must see the case through the procedure set forth by its employer.

In sum, it is always a good idea to be aware of your company’s policies.  Even though you likely have no choice about whether or not to agree, knowing what your up against can influence how you move forward when put in a difficult situation.