Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
w. (202) 588-7716
bholzer@citizen.org

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779
kgower@citizen.org

Ben Somberg, Press Officer (regulatory matters)
w. (202) 588-7742
bsomberg@citizen.org, Twitter

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog
Facebook/publiccitizen

Follow us on Twitter

 

Jan. 23, 2009 

Much-Needed Fair Pay Act Won’t Fully Help Some Employees

Many Companies Force Workers to Forfeit Their Right to File Claims in Court

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Victims of gender discrimination in the workplace won a major victory in the U.S. Senate late Thursday with the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but some women may not be fully protected under the measure, according to Public Citizen.

That’s because many employees have been forced to sign binding mandatory arbitration agreements, which means they have forfeited their rights to take job discrimination claims to court, said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. Fifteen to 20 percent of employees – roughly 30 million workers – are covered by binding mandatory arbitration agreements forced on them by their employers.

These contract provisions require individuals to submit all disputes to private “company courts” chosen by the employer instead of litigating in public courts. There are severe flaws in mandatory arbitration. Foremost, the arbitration company is chosen by the employer and therefore has an incentive to favor that side. Forced arbitrations are also secretive, expensive to consumers and workers,    and provide virtually no meaningful appeal – even for decisions that are grossly unfair or flatly mistaken about basic facts.

Arbitrators are not required to follow federal law, and they have an inherent financial incentive to favor employers who choose them,” Arkush said. “An arbitrator’s decision is virtually unreviewable in real courts, even if the arbitrator has blatantly disregarded federal law. That means the roughly 30 million American employees subject to forced arbitration contracts may never benefit from laws like the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.”

While Arkush urged President Obama to sign the Ledbetter Act, he said that Congress also should pass the Arbitration Fairness Act, which garnered 103 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House of Representatives in the last Congress. The act prohibits companies from imposing binding mandatory arbitration in employment and consumer contracts, and for claims brought under civil rights statutes like the one that protected Lilly Ledbetter, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Ledbetter bill overturns a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that unfairly restricted the timeframe in which federal wage discrimination complaints could be filed, holding that Ledbetter’s right to bring a discrimination claim expired even before she had learned that her employer had discriminated against her.

More congressional action is needed because of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have held that discrimination claims under the Civil Rights Act can be sent to arbitration, said Graham Steele, a Public Citizen civil justice lobbyist.

“There is something inherently unjust about requiring employees to give up their right to a fair hearing in court as a condition of taking or keeping a job,” Steele said. “Congress is making a clear statement that victims of employment discrimination are entitled to the full protection of the Civil Rights Act. But to ensure that the law applies to everyone, Congress must put a stop to forced arbitration.”

###

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.