|
In ordering arbitration of an employment dispute, a federal district court in Indiana noted that an employee’s fear or anxiety about the arbitration process does not render an arbitration agreement invalid.
In Lamb v. General Electric Consumer & Industrial, No. 1:06-CV-216, 2006 WL 2228962 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2006), Lamb sued GE, her former employee, alleging sex discrimination, after the EEOC gave her a right to sue letter. GE moved to compel arbitration.
Proceeding pro se, Lamb opposed GE’s motion to compel arbitration by arguing that: (1) GE failed to raise the issue of arbitration during the EEOC administrative review and therefore waived its right to arbitrate; (2) women and minorities are disadvantaged by the current arbitration system; and (3) the arbitration process does not allow for judicial review. The Court rejected each argument.
In rejecting Lamb’s argument that GE waived its right to arbitrate, the Court noted that neither the law nor the parties’ arbitration agreement required GE to raise the issue of arbitration during the EEOC review. As the Court noted, by invoking its arbitration agreement, GE would have disrupted the EEOC’s own ADR program.
The Court rejected Lamb’s argument that arbitration unfairly disadvantages women and minorities because she cited no legal authority for that opinion. The Court was “not unsympathetic to Lamb’s fear of the arbitration process” but noted that “anxiety or even fear on the part of an employee about the arbitration process . . . does not constitute a basis for declaring a mandatory arbitration contract invalid.” Moreover, the Court noted that federal courts have embraced arbitration as “a cost-effective and expedient way to resolve disputes and claims.”
Finally, the Court rejected Lamb’s argument that arbitration does not allow for judicial review because any award would be subject to limited judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act. As the Court noted, the limitations on judicial review are necessary because “the integrity and independence of the arbitration process is more adequately protected and assured by limited, rather than broad, judicial review.”
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|