Compulsory Arbitration: The Grand Experiment in Employment

Compulsory Arbitration: The Grand Experiment in Employment (Cornell University ILR Press, 1997) 

Compulsory Arbitration: The Grand Experiment in Employment offers the first book-length studies of mandatory employment arbitration in the United States. Written in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., the book traces the rapid expansion of compulsory arbitration agreements in the 1990s and evaluates the legal, institutional, and policy implications of what was then a novel and controversial trend. 

The book examines compulsory arbitration in multiple contexts. It reviews the Federal Arbitration Act and its application to statutory employment claims, considers the interaction between arbitration and federal employment laws such as Title VII, and explores the potential conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act. Other chapters focus on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s role, the use of arbitration in the securities industry, and the pioneering company-wide program developed by Brown & Root. Together, these case studies demonstrate both the adaptability and the contested boundaries of arbitration as a workplace dispute resolution mechanism. 

Distinctive features of the book include its balanced analysis of advantages (such as speed, cost, and informality) and disadvantages (such as loss of jury trial, limited discovery, and restricted appeals) of arbitration. The book also highlights concerns about fairness, employee consent, and the potential for abuse when arbitration agreements are imposed as a condition of employment. By drawing on case law, legislative debates, and practical examples, it situates compulsory arbitration at the intersection of employment law, labor relations, and public policy. 

Ultimately, the book frames compulsory arbitration as a “grand experiment”: a systemic shift that could improve access to justice if implemented fairly, but one that also risks undermining worker protections if courts and legislatures fail to enforce safeguards. Its analysis continues to resonate as debates over mandatory arbitration in employment remain central to discussions of workplace rights and dispute resolution.