Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1963260
 


 



Private Resolution of Public Disputes: Employment, Arbitration, and the Statutory Cause of Action


Griffin Toronjo Pivateau


Oklahoma State University

November 22, 2011

Pace Law Review, Winter 2011

Abstract:     
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its commitment to honoring arbitration clauses in employment agreements. In Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, the Court found that courts should treat arbitration agreements in the employment context in the same manner as arbitration agreements found in any commercial contract. The Rent-A-Center result was not surprising. In recent years, the Supreme Court has faced the issue of mandatory arbitration agreements numerous times and, in virtually every case, favored arbitration. The Court has proved willing to cast aside or ignore precedent in its pursuit of a pro-arbitration policy.

In favoring arbitration clauses in employment agreements, the Supreme Court has relied on general contract principles. Essentially, the Court has found that, if an employee has agreed to have his statutory discrimination heard in a private forum, then that employee should stick with the deal.

But relying on general contract principles to decide a matter involving the employment relationship is disingenuous. In fact, the standard employment agreement bears little relationship to the traditional contract. It is not the employment agreement, but statutes that furnish the majority of the duties and obligations of an employment relationship. Numerous areas of the employment relationship are constrained by public law and therefore not subject to contract. The typical employment agreement governs relatively minor areas — things like salary and benefits. The most important aspects of the employment relationship — occupational safety and health, minimum wage, overtime pay, discrimination — exist independently and cannot be waived in contract.

There is a particular aspect of the employment relationship that, while open to contract, remains subject to constraints imposed by the law. A noncompete agreement permits an employee to contract with his employer to not work for a competitor following the termination of the employment relationship. This right to contract away the right to compete is, however, narrowly construed by the court system. A court may not enforce a noncompete agreement unless the agreement meets a standard of reasonableness. I propose that this same analysis be applied to arbitration agreements. It is my position that a pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration agreement should not be enforced unless it meets certain requirements that together make the agreement reasonable. This standard of reasonableness will protect the interests of all parties: the employer, the employee, and society as a whole.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 24

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: November 23, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Pivateau, Griffin Toronjo, Private Resolution of Public Disputes: Employment, Arbitration, and the Statutory Cause of Action (November 22, 2011). Pace Law Review, Winter 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1963260

Contact Information

Griffin Toronjo Pivateau (Contact Author)
Oklahoma State University ( email )
Stillwater, OK 74078-0555
United States
405-786-8640 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 259
Downloads: 44

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.297 seconds