One of the attributes of employment arbitration that makes it an attractive alternative to litigation is its promise of a cost-efficient and relatively quick, yet final, resolution of a dispute.
There has been some concern in the employer community as to whether the desired binding effect of arbitration could be circumvented by the simple expedient of a court action filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of charging parties who otherwise would be bound by their arbitration agreements. In its recent decision in EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc.,[1]� the Supreme Court provided a partial answer, holding by a six to three vote that, at least, insofar as its prayer for relief is concerned, the agency can seek the full range of statutorily available relief despite the charging party’s arbitration agreement. Suggestions that Waffle House allows the EEOC to relitigate a claim that has been submitted to arbitration are unfounded, for the Court expressly left open the issue of what effect a release or an arbitrated judgment would have on the scope of the EEOC’s suit. The news is not all bad for those favoring employment arbitration, for there is also some basis for reading the decision as casting doubt on the vitality of the Ninth Circuit’s continuing refusal to enforce mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements in Title VII (and, by extension, disability discrimination) cases.
