Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

Employees cannot sue for discrimination, harassment, abuse, retaliation or wrongful termination. In forced arbitration, the laws that protect us from discrimination based on age, gender, religious belief, race, disability, and unequal pay for equal work, such as the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act, become meaningless and unenforceable in court. Employees lose important protections for blowing the whistle on waste or fraud or for fighting retaliation for bringing the family medical leave.
Consumers cannot sue for neglect, faulty products or scams. Simply by buying a product or service, consumers can lose their right to keep a company accountable. Even if a retirement account disappears, a place is dangerous and defective, or a loved one suffers harm in a nursing home,

public civil justice system, and instead submit all of their legal claims to binding mandatory arbitration. Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as lower courts, have made it significantly more difficult for consumers and employees to challenge even the most abusive mandatory arbitration clauses. These conclusions, including the recent case of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, have cut back efforts by nations to protect consumers and employees against unfair contract terms. In many instances, mandatory arbitration clauses have the effect of immunizing corporations from any financial obligation or accountability even when they have blatantly violated consumer protection or civil rights laws. As a consequence, corporations are able to weaken consumer protection laws by making out things such as misleading consumers about the prices of loans or engage in similar bait-and-switch practices, and the legal system does nothing to discourage these behaviors or compensate cheated consumers. This is not simply an issue of fairness to consumers, it also undermines the market when there is no enforcement of the rulers of the road. The concerns addressed in this testimony all relate to