Jury Waivers: An Alternative to Arbitration
May 17, 2012
The practice of requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements has become more widespread, and the enforceability of those agreements are routinely accepted by the courts. The pros and cons that are typically associated with arbitration include the following:
- Avoidance of Juries: Conventional wisdom is that arbitrators tend to be both more predictable in decision making and reasonable in awarding damages. However, others argue that arbitrators tend to “split the baby.”
- Less expensive? Some say yes, some say no. Attorneys’ fees may be reduced, but the costs shouldered by the employer for administering a private dispute resolution system may increase.
- Finality: No route to appeal absent exigent circumstances.
- Potential Increase in Claims: Some employers have a concern that employees may pursue more claims if they can do so easily and relatively cheaply through arbitration.
- More cases are decided on the merits than in traditional litigation. More cases settle through traditional litigation than go to trial.
- Use of screening mechanisms such as pretrial motions are done away with.
If you currently require your employees to execute a binding arbitration agreement as a condition of continued employment, or you have been considering that alternative, you may wish to reconsider your practice and implement mandatory jury waivers. It could provide the best of both worlds.