1991 Amendment To Title VII Facilitates Waiver Of Statutory Remedies In Favor Of Arbitration
“Before 1991, ‘Title VII had been interpreted to prohibit any waiver of its statutory remedies in favor of arbitration. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Lai, 42 F.3d 1299, 1304 (9th Cir. 1994). But Congress reversed course with amendments to Title VII [i.e., Section 118 of the Act] in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. . . ‘” Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., No. 12-55912 (9th Cir. May 12, 2015) (Bea, Bybee, Christen). Before Ashbey, Ninth Circuit opinions were loathe to find that an employee asserting Title VII claims had waived the right to a jury trial by agreeing to arbitrate. Kummetz v. Tech Mold, Inc., 152 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1998); Nelson v. Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., 119 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 1997). Relying on the Section 118 amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, however, Ashbey holds that an employee may be required to arbitrate a claim alleging unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII, where the employee “knowingly” waives the right to a jury trial by agreeing to submit such disputes to arbitration.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that Ashbey’s waiver was “knowing” in circumstances where he was explicitly notified of a Dispute Resolution Policy, and that policy unambiguously stated: it “is governed by the the Federal Arbitration Act,” all disputes are to be resolved only by an arbitrator through final and binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial, and it “applies, without limitation, to disputes arising out of the employment relationship . . . including, without limitation, disputes over . . . harassment and claims arising under the . . . Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
COMMENT: The opinion states that the employer “presented Ashbey the ‘express’ choice lacking in both Kummetz and Nelson.” What exactly is that express choice? It’s not the choice of accepting employment and choosing to waive or not to waive the right to a judicial forum. Rather, the choice appears to be between accepting employment and agreeing to waive the right to a judicial forum or not accepting employment. Under those circumstances, we predict that employers will make use of the waiver language in Ashbey, and employees will choose to be employed rather than unemployed. Thus Title VII claims will be channeled into arbitration.
Comments