[Senate Hearing 111-396] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 111-396 ``WORKPLACE FAIRNESS: HAS THE SUPREME COURT BEEN MISINTERPRETING LAWS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS FROM DISCRIMINATION?'' ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 7, 2009 __________ Serial No. J-111-55 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56-089 WASHINGTON : 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania AL FRANKEN, Minnesota Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Matt Miner, Republican Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1 prepared statement........................................... 185 Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 3 WITNESSES de Bernardo, Mark A., Partner, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Washington, DC 8 Foreman, Michael, Professor & Director, Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, Dickinson Section of Law, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania...................... 12 Fox, Michael W., Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Steward, P.C., Austin, Texas................................... 10 Gross, Jack, Des Moines, Iowa.................................... 7 Jones, Jamie Leigh, Founder/Chief Executive Officer, The Jamie Leigh Foundation, Spring, Texas................................ 5 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Mark A. de Bernardo to questions submitted by Senator Sessions............................................... 28 Responses of Michael W. Fox to questions submitted by Senator Sessions....................................................... 42 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Coleman, Francis T., Waffling Circuits, article.................. 46 Davis, Daniel J., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Washington, DC, article........................................................ 53 de Bernardo, Mark A., Partner, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Washington, DC 59 Foreman, Michael, Professor & Director, Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, Dickinson Section of Law, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania...................... 81 Fox, Michael W., Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Steward, P.C., Austin, Texas................................... 95 Gross, Jack, Des Moines, Iowa.................................... 136 Hill, Elizabeth, Dispute Resolution Journal, May/July 2003, article........................................................ 142 JAMS, Washington, DC: June 26, 2009, article 150 August 2002, article 153 July 15, 2009, article 156 Jones, Jamie Leigh, Founder/Chief Executive Officer, The Jamie Leigh Foundation, Spring, Texas................................ 176 LexisNexis, New York University Law Review, Albany, New York: Estreicher, Samuel, December 1997, article................... 187 Maltby, Lewis L., Fall 1998, article......................... 213 Mogilnicki, Eric J. and Kirk D. Jensen, Spring 2003, article..... 237 Townsend, John M., U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, Washington, DC, October 2006, agreements....................... 257 U.S. District Court, Judicial Case load Profile, report.......... 286 Westlaw, Dianne LaRocca, report.................................. 287 ``WORKPLACE FAIRNESS: HAS THE SUPREME COURT BEEN MISINTERPRETING LAWS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS FROM DISCRIMINATION?'' ---------- WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Specter, Franken, Sessions, and Grassley. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman Leahy. Good morning. This week the U.S. Supreme Court met to officially begin its new term. While I talked about this yesterday at another Committee I thought we would have this hearing to highlight how decisions of the Supreme Court affect the everyday lives of Americans. And what we see on the headlines about a U.S. Supreme Court decision may look one way, but with the average Americans it can have quite an effect. Our hearing will focus on how a bare majority of the Supreme Court has overridden statutory protections to make it more difficult to prove age discrimination in the workplace. In two narrowly divided 5/4 decisions the conservative majority of the court threatens to eliminate more of America's civil rights in the workplace. Just as it eliminated Lilly Ledbetter's claim to equal pay, basically said a woman does not have to be paid the same as a man until Congress stepped in to set the law right. It is difficult that we have these laws on the books. For some time it worked very well to protect Americans and then time and time again, the very, very activist, Supreme Court, overturns them. Their recent decisions make it more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to seek relief in court, more difficult for those victims to get their day in court to vindicate their rights. For anyone that doubts that there is this activism in our courts and the effect it is having, they need to look no further than the decisions that are affecting two of our witnesses, Jamie Leigh Jones and Jack Gross. The Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act in the Circuit City case threatens to undermine the effective enforcement of our Civil Rights laws. When Congress passed the Arbitration Act, passed by a bipartisan majority, it intended to provide sophisticated businesses an alternative venue to resolve their disputes. That is what was intended. I know what was not intended. Congress never intended the law to become a hammer for corporations to use against their employees. But in Circuit City the Supreme Court allowed for just that. Now, after the Circuit City decision, employers are able to unilaterally strip their employees of their Civil Rights by including arbitration clauses in every employment contract they draft. Some have estimated that at least 30 million workers have unknowingly waived their constitutional and guaranteed right to have Civil Rights claims resolved by a jury by accepting employment which necessarily meant signing a contract that included such a clause in the fine print. There is no rule of law in arbitration. There are no juries, there are no independent judges in the arbitration industry. There is no appellate review. There is no transparency. And we are going to hear from Jamie Leigh Jones today, there is no justice. We will also hear from Mr. Gross. His case shows that for those employees who are able to preliminary open the courtroom doors, the Supreme Court then placed additional obstacles on the path to justice. Let me just tell you a little bit about it. After spending 32 years working for an Iowa subsidiary of a major financial company, Jack Gross was demoted, and his job duties were reassigned to a younger worker who was significantly less qualified. In his lawsuit under the Age Discrimination Act, a jury concluded that age had been the motivating factor in his demotion and they awarded him nearly $50,000 in lost compensation. But a slim, activist, conservative majority of the Supreme Court overturned the jury verdict and decided to rewrite the law. The five justices adopted a standard that the Supreme Court itself had rejected in a prior case and the Congress had rejected when we enacted by bipartisan majority the Civil Rights Act of 1991. So I am concerned that the Gross decision will allow employers to discriminate on the basis of age with impunity as long as they ``get other reasons.'' I fear in the wake of Gross, few, if any, of these victims of age discrimination will achieve justice. The worst part about it, the lower courts have been applying the rationale endorsed in this case to weaken other anti-discrimination statutes as well. When President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act into law earlier this year, he reminded us of the real world impact of Supreme Court decisions on workplace rights. He said that economic justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It is about how our laws affect the daily reality of people's lives, their ability to make a living and care for their families, achieve their goals. He also reminded us of making our economy work. That means making sure it works for everyone. In that case he was saying that women should be paid the same as men, contrary to what the Supreme Court has said. Senator Sessions. STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Senator Sessions. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. I look forward to this panel. We are talking about some important issues. Fairness in courts is essential for justice in America. It is what people expect. The small person, the individual, should have clear protections and rights that they can assert in an employment case. We all believe in that. But we do set up rules. And employers do, on occasion, have to reduce work forces, no matter how painful that might be. And it causes pain for people who lose their jobs and often they assert whatever rights they believe they have to maintain their employment. So I think those are things that are just inevitable in our business community today. Having clarity, having appropriate principles to guide employers and the courts in deciding these matters is important. So this kind of discussion, I believe, is worthwhile, Mr. Chairman. I just do not believe that we should see every decision on termination of employment or other business-related matters as somehow necessarily a discrimination. It's just a choice of how to go forward. I also would object to a view that arbitration is not a healthy way to handle many of these cases. One survey by the American Arbitration Association showed that employees won 63 percent of the cases in arbitration and that same year only 14 percent of the employees bringing claims in Federal court prevailed. The results of arbitration are similar to jury verdicts in terms of value to the employee and also can be less expensive for the employee and the legal fees can be less in sizeable than the employee. So I think the idea that is assumed that arbitration automatically is a disadvantage to an employee is not true. And, in fact, the opposite may well be the case. So the Supreme Court has affirmed arbitration and I hope that as we move forward we do not undevelop ideas and strategies and legislation that undermines something that is important. If every employment dispute, employee/employer dispute, ends up in Federal court, I would just note parenthetically, we are really going to have a problem with the case loads in Federal court. And that is really not what Federal courts are for, to settle every employment dispute that exists out there, and there are so many of them. So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this panel. Senator Grassley has got a meeting he has to go to in a few minutes and I believe he would like to introduce one of the panelists early on in this process if you could do that. I would note that I am going to have to slip out in a little bit because Alabama will be adding to the Statuary Hall a statue of Helen Keller, the person who has done more, I think, than any other person in history throughout her life to highlight the abilities of the disabled. So it is an exciting day for us today and we will do that at 11. I will need to get over there a few minutes early. So I thank you for that. And you know as we review her life and that great movie and all that developed out of her life story, you really do realize that persons who may not be able to do everything can do so many things exceedingly well. And, they can contribute so fabulously to our National productivity. The Disabilities Act that many of you worked on to pass has really given so many employees a right to full participation in the American economy. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing. Chairman Leahy. I appreciate that and you should be there. I walked through the Rotunda late last night and it is all set up for that statue. I would say, as a child I sometimes, as a child will, felt badly because I had been born blind in one eye. Then I saw the Helen Keller story and I realized how greatly advantaged I was, but also what she did for all the rest of us. Senator Grassley, you wanted to introduce the panel. Please, go ahead, sir. Senator Grassley. If I could. I will not take any time to discuss policy because we will have a chance to review the testimony of all the witnesses. But one of the witnesses is a constituent with a famous political name in Iowa, even though he is not politically inclined, maybe himself. But Mr. Gross is with us today. So I wanted to say a couple words because of him and show him the courtesy. I will also be meeting with him in my office this afternoon at my appointment schedule. Jack Gross now lives in Creston, Iowa, and he is here today to testify about his case before the Supreme Court last year. He is still living in the part of the state he was born in. He was born near the community of Material. Ayr, Iowa. Mr. Gross is a graduate of Drake University and was employed by the Iowa Farm Bureau for over 30 years. His great uncle happened to be Have. R. Gross. Your first 2 years in the Senate would have been Mr. Gross' 25th and 26th year in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then he retired and I took his place in the House of Representatives. Mr. Gross is here today to testify about his experience in litigating the age discrimination employment case from Iowa Federal District Court to the Eighth Circuit Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court just very recently. Unfortunately, because of Finance Committee work, I won't be able to be here beyond about 10:27. But I look forward to either hearing his testimony or else reading about it and visiting with him in the afternoon to find out first-hand how he has been impacted by his employer and by the courts. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Senator Grassley. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. I know I enjoyed meeting both Mr. and Mrs. Gross yesterday. Our first witness will be Jamie Leigh Jones, the founder and CEO of the Jamie Leigh Jones--is it Lee or Leigh? Ms. Jones. Leigh. Chairman Leahy. Leigh Jones--Jamie Leigh Jones Foundation. It is a nonprofit ``organization'' wanted dedicated to helping Americans who are victims of crime while working abroad for government contractors and subcontractors. Ms. Jones currently teaches math, science, and social studies to middle school children. My children are all grown up and now I have at least one grandchild and soon a second one in that. I know how important the middle school is. So, please, Ms. Jones, go ahead. STATEMENT OF JAMIE LEIGH JONES FOUNDER/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE JAMIE LEIGH FOUNDATION SPRING, TEXAS Ms. Jones. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am here today to share with you a personal tragedy. I do this to bring awareness to legislation--the Arbitration Fairness Act--introduced by Senator Feingold, which is designed to ensure that no American will be deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed right to the fair administration of justice. At an age barely old enough to vote I took a job in Iraq with Halliburton. When hired I signed an employment contract. Days later I was sent to Camp Hope in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Before my deployment Haliburton showed me photographs of the trailer I would live in, a suite with one other woman and a shared bathroom. Upon arrival I was assigned to a barracks which was predominantly male. I found myself subject to repeated catcalls and partially dressed men while I was walking to the restroom. I complained to Halliburton managers about these living conditions and asked them to move me into the quarters that I had been promised. My requests were not only ignored, they were mocked. On the fourth day in Iraq I was socializing outside the barracks with several other contractors Halliburton had sent to the Green Zone. The men known only to me as Halliburton firefighters offered me an alcoholic drink which I took. I remember nothing after taking a couple of sips. When I awoke in my room, I was naked, sore, bruised, and bleeding. As the grogginess wore off, and I returned from the bathroom--where evidence that I had been raped was abundantly clear to me--I found a naked firefighter still laying in the bunk bed. I was shocked. How could he have raped me like that and not even bothered to leave. I know now that this is because he knew there would not likely be punishment for his crime. There had never been before. After reporting the rape to KBR operations coordinator I was taken to the Army CASH where a rape kit confirmed that I had been assaulted both vaginally and anally by multiple perpetrators. The Army doctor then handed my rape kit to KBR security personnel. I was then taken to a container where I was held captive by two armed guards. I requested a phone from KBR officials who denied me this request. Eventually one of the guards gave in to my pleading and allowed me to use his cell phone. I called my father who then contacted Congressman Ted Poe. Congressman Poe dispatched the State Department officials to ensure my release and safe return to the United States. Prior to my return to the U.S. Halliburton management told me that I could either stay and get over it or go home with no guarantee of a job in Houston or Iraq. The severity of my physical injuries necessitated my decision and I went home in the face of threats of termination, which later proved to be true. When I returned home the pains in my chest continued and I sought medical help. It was confirmed that my breasts were disfigured and my pectoral muscles had been turned. Reconstructive surgery was required. After I filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission they conducted an investigation and concluded that I had been sexually assaulted, that the physical trauma was evident, that Halliburton's investigation and response had been inadequate. I turned to the civil court system for justice when the criminal justice system was slow to respond. When my lawyers filed the suit they were met with Halliburton's response that all of my claims were to be decided in arbitration because I had signed away my right to a trial by jury at such an early age. Halliburton said that my employment contract included a pre-dispute, binding arbitration clause that required me to submit all my claims in mandatory, secret arbitration. I didn't even know that I had signed such a clause. But even if I had known, I would never have guessed that it would cover claims of sexual assault and false imprisonment. Also, I had no choice but to sign this contract because I needed this job. I had no idea that the clause was part of the contract, what the clause actually meant, or that I would eventually end up in this horrible situation. I fought the forced arbitration clause and just last month after almost 4 years of litigation, the Fifth Circuit ruled that my--that four of my claims against Halliburton relating to the rape were not covered by the clause in my employment contract. The rest of my claims, including my discrimination claims under Title V--Title VII, sorry, had been forced into binding arbitration. Just yesterday Halliburton filed an appeal to this decision. The problem of forcing claims like mine into a secret system of binding arbitration goes well beyond me. Numerous other women who were assaulted or raped then retaliated against for reporting those attacks and forced into secret arbitration have contacted me for help through the Jamie Leigh Foundation. Even when victims pursue their claims in arbitration, the information is sealed and kept confidential. The system of arbitration keeps this evidence from ever coming to public light and allows companies like Halliburton to continue to allow the abuse of their employees without repercussion or public scrutiny. Distinguished members of the committee, you have the power to stop these abuses that hide behind the veil of arbitration. And I hope that you take this opportunity to protect employees and stop this practice from continuing. Thank you for your time. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. And we will go through each of the witnesses and then back to questions. And I will have some about obviously Halliburton acting as a government and law unto itself, something they did in a number of areas, as we have known, in Iraq. Mr. Gross, you have already been introduced by Senator Grassley. I had the opportunity of meeting you and your wife yesterday. Please, go ahead, sir. STATEMENT OF JACK GROSS DES MOINES, IOWA Mr. Gross. Thank you, Senator or Chairman Leahy. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. Thank you, Senator Grassley for your remarks. I join many Iowans in saying how proud we have been to have you as our Senator for a great many years. Mr. Franken, I appreciated your remarks about my case during the Sotomayor debate. I was very impressed with the detailed knowledge that you exhibited in such a short time about what had happened. Mr. Sessions, I appreciate your comments also. I kind of come from the white, corporate world and was asked a question during our trial if I didn't really think that corporate management should have the right to make decisions that affected the bottom line for their shareholders and their employees. And my answer was, absolutely, I believe that; as long as they stay within the confines of the law. And that was why we were there. I wanted to participate in the process. I feel like I'm a little bit of an unlikely candidate simply because mine is not the face that is normally associated with discrimination. But age is discrimination in its own right. I certainly never imagined that my case would end up here when it all started nearly 7 years ago. That's when my employer, Farm Bureau Insurance, or FBL merged with the Kansas Farm Bureau. Apparently not wanting to add any more older workers to their workforce, when Kansas came on board, they bought out all the Kansas employees, claims employees who were over 50 years of age. At the same time, in the Iowa Farm Bureau and the other original states they simply demoted every one of us who were over 50 and had a supervisory level or above. A pretty clear signal to all of us that if you are over 50 they would kind of like to get us out of there. I was 54 at the time and I was swept out with the whole thing. Even though I had 13 consecutive years of performance reviews in the top 5 percent of the company, and had dedicated my working life to making Farm Bureau a better company. My contributions were very well documented including I had just completed the development of taking all of our policies, combining them into one unique policy, a package policy. It's a policy that Farm Bureau is now using to base all of their future growth upon. My position was, as stated, given to a much younger and newer employee with far less experience and education. Age was the obvious reason that I filed a complaint and two years later a Federal jury spent an entire week listening to all the testimony, seeing all the evidence, being instructed on the law, the ADEA, and they were even admonished to rule against me and in favor of Farm Bureau if they could find any reason, other than age, for Farm Bureau's actions. Still the verdict came back in my favor and I thought in 2005 that my ordeal was over. Then it started getting lawyered to death. Eventually ending up in at the Supreme Court in March of this year over one single issue in the jury instruction. And that was whether direct evidence was required in a mixed motive context. That's what--that's the question that the Supreme Court accepted sui juris on, the one that we expected to get addressed. However, instead of addressing that one issue, the court broke with its own protocol and precedent to literally hijack my case and use it as a vehicle to water down the law written by the branch of government closest to the people, yourselves. We came here in March believing in the rule of law and its consistent application to all areas of discrimination. We were disappointed and I was personally disillusioned by a lot of what I observed at the court level. We believe that this issue does transcend partisan politics and presents an opportunity for both parties to come together to protect their aging constituents back home in the workforce. On a personal level, this has been a rough ride. But what is becoming even harder is watching the collateral damage being inflicted by older workers on the courts by this ruling. Because of their decision my legacy to working Americans will be having my name associated with pain and injustice inflicted on older workers because it will be nearly impossible to provide the level of proof now ascribed to this one type of employment discrimination. That is a heavy burden to place on one guy who simply sought to right one act of discrimination. I wasn't the one who changed the law, five justices did. I can only urge Congress to step up, like they did in the Ledbetter case and restore the ADEA to its original intent. Thank you very much. Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Gross. Mark de Benardo is a partner at Jackson Lewis here in Washington, am I correct on that? Mr. de Bernardo. That's right. Chairman Leahy. And he served as Director of Labor Law for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Please go ahead. STATEMENT OF MARK A. DE BERNARDO PARTNER, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP WASHINGTON, DC Mr. de Bernardo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee, and Ranking Minority Sessions. I am pleased to be here today to testify in strong support of the use of mediation and arbitration as an adjunct to our jurisprudence system in America, in support of ADR in employment, in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Circuit City v. Adams, and in opposition to S. 931. The reason that we oppose S. 931 is that if this legislation were enacted, effectively arbitration in employment in America and in other contexts would end. That is the net effect. It is my firm and unequivocal belief that the use of ADR is both pro employer and pro employee. And when implemented appropriately, it's a tremendous asset to both employee relations and our system of justice. Jackson Lewis has a long and proud record of support for effective and equitable ADR programs as an alternative to costly, time-consuming, deleterious, and relationship destructive litigation. I want to underscore that the reality is, again, that S. 931, if it were enacted, effectively would end arbitration in America, would abolish this practice in the non-union sector. Organized labor has long embraced binding arbitration as a foundation of union representation. And my law firm and the organization I represent agree in that context. The seminal question is, should employers and employees be able to engage in mediation and mandatory, binding arbitration for employment disputes as alternatives to litigation. The seminal answer is, absolutely. ADR in employment programs are flourishing. When implemented appropriately they are decisively in employees' best interests, and yes--and yet S. 931 would effectively deny this option to employers and employees. Given the costs, delays, and divisiveness of employment litigation the more sensible and conciliatory options preferable for employers and for their employees, the net result of the use of ADR is more employee complaints resolved and addressed. As many as 20 times, if you take a look at the experience in ADR programs, dispute resolution programs across the country, what you have is many more complaints that are raised by employees, grievances that are addressed, they are addressed in a much more civil fashion, they are addressed much more comprehensively, and are resolved on a much quicker basis. Thus, again, complaints addressed sooner with less tension, less turnover. What you have is that litigation is a job destroyer. Arbitration is a job preserver. In the typical situation as discussed in the testimony at length, arbitrations take 104 days. Litigation in the Southern District of New York if you have an employment law case, typically takes 2.8 years for that case to be heard. The backlog in the Federal court system is huge. One-third of the backlog in the Federal court system are employment law cases. The old adage that ``justice delayed is justice denied'' certainly is true in this case. So you have many more employee grievances that are addressed, as many as 20 times as many addressed much sooner and addressed in a context which is much more amicable and more likely to resolve the situation and preserve the job. It improved morale; 83 percent of employees support ADR in the workplace. It is a popular concept for those employers who have adopted it and adopted it appropriately. It provides for more effective communication. Chairman Leahy. In your comments---- Mr. de Bernardo. Sure. Chairman Leahy.--you also tell how arbitration would be helpful to somebody like Ms. Jones when her employer Halliburton, in effect, said that rape and sexual assault has to just be considered part of the job. Mr. de Bernardo. There are literally millions of employees that are covered by ADR programs in the United States. There are 160 million workers in the United States. I understand the situation alleged by Ms. Jones is awful, tragic. I agree with her that it was a tragedy that she alleged. This is a terrible situation. This is an assault. I think those that are engaged in rape or heinous crimes such as rape should be punished---- And, in fact, there is recourse. I am not here representing anyone involved in that case, I am not involved in that case. Like Mr. Gross, Ms. Jones has had her day in court and maybe more than she wanted, it goes on and on and on, I understand that. What we are talking about is the concept of Alternate Dispute Resolution programs overall. In that regards what you have is a concept that is fully entrenched in the American workplace and is popular across the board with almost all constituencies; employers, employees, parties to arbitration. You know, more than 70 percent of those surveyed--as discussed in the testimony, Mr. Chairman--more than 70 percent of those who have engaged in employment arbitration favor the system and nearly two-thirds say that they would do it again. So, you know, it has a very positive role to play. The facts of one incident and one individual incident, as terrible as they may be, don't necessarily reflect on whether or not as a concept in America today we should embrace or withdraw from the concept of arbitration in employment. And this was my final point that I was saying in this one section is that ADR in employment results in better work places. It's an early warning system to employers on what may be bothersome in the workplace. Typically the types of complaints that come in, employees have a situation where they are concerned, you have informal mediation, formal mediation, if necessary, arbitration, those issues are resolved. Employers might end up being better employers and addressing and correcting situations that need to be addressed and corrected. Circuit City, I know we are going to talk about that. But Circuit City was a decision that was wholly consistent with past precedent. It was wholly consistent with all of the other Circuits except for the Ninth Circuit decision and appropriately decided. And I mentioned how litigation results in---- Chairman Leahy. I know I interrupted your testimony. So I've given you two extra minutes. Mr. de Bernardo. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Your whole statement will, of course, be made a part of the record. Mr. de Bernardo. I appreciate that. Chairman Leahy. Michael Fox is an attorney in the Austin Branch of the firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, and Stewart in Texas. Mr. Fox, it is good to have you here. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. FOX, SHAREHOLDER, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK, & STEWART, P.C., AUSTIN, TEXAS Mr. Fox. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the committee, I am pleased and honored to be here today. I am a trial lawyer from Texas. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Fox, is your microphone on? Mr. Fox. Sorry about that. Chairman Leahy, thanks for the invitation. I am honored to be here. I am a trial lawyer from Texas. For more than 30 years I have represented employers in labor and employment law matters. I have handled discrimination claims against employers in jury trials and non-jury proceedings. A distinction that I think is important and one reason I strongly believe that reversing the Gross v. FBL Services case would be a tragic mistake. I have had a ring-side seat to the changing American workplace. There is no question that it is not only changed, but is significantly better particularly for women and minorities than when I was licensed to practice law in 1975. There is also no question that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the other Federal legislation that followed have been significant and positive factors in that change. More germane to today's discussion there should also be no question that the law which has provided the base for the improved workplace has developed and flourished under the interpretation and guidance of the Supreme Court. Turning to the Gross decision and the proposed legislative remedy, there has been much written about the Supreme Court's holding that age discrimination plaintiffs are not entitled to a mixed motive instruction. But almost all of the criticism fails to acknowledge the significance of the difference between the ADEA and Title VII and the spotty history of the mixed motive theory. More importantly, none makes the distinction between a theory that was developed for cases that were to be tried by judges and is now being applied to cases that are tried before juries. I have covered it more extensively in my written testimony, but briefly, the mixed motive analysis was first introduced in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, at a time when Title VII cases were non-jury. Two years later Congress codified it for Title VII, but did not include the Age Act in that section of the amendment. Congress also provided, for the first time ever, that Title VII cases would now be tried to juries, not to judges. The end result is, that when the Gross case came before the court this past summer, it had the advantage of seeing how a theory that was developed for cases to be tried by judges had worked in the real world of jury trials and adopted a more common-sense rule that actually does little to alter the real world of age discrimination litigation. One reason why I say the court adopted a common-sense rule is because of the difficulties the courts have had in trying to adjust the mixed motive analysis to jury trials. From my experience in the courtroom, the most important thing for the effective enforcement of anti-discrimination laws through jury trials is a method of instructing the jury which is simple, not complex; practical, not theoretical. The mixed motive instruction is the opposite. It focuses attention on legal theories, not the facts, and is both complex and theoretical. In short, it is the antithesis of what makes for an effective jury instruction. The net result is that the mixed motive analysis created for a non-jury system which is applicable to Title VII does not work for jury trials. In the real world the courts have had significant difficulty in applying it. It is not widely used by plaintiffs and may not really be needed. According to one plaintiff's lawyer who does still advocate the legislative overturning of Gross, as far as the loss of getting a mixed motive instruction in an age discrimination case, most plaintiffs' lawyers don't care. It's too confusing to the jury. In closing, before using Gross as a reason to expand the use of the mixed motive analysis, which the proposed legislation introduced yesterday, would do to the entirety of Federal employment laws, not just age discrimination, I would respectfully suggest that all those interested in the enforcement of the anti-discrimination laws, which includes people on both sides of the docket would be better served by a closer examination of how successful and necessary the concept of a mixed motive instruction created in a non-jury world has actually worked in the real world of jury trials, the one that we actually have, before taking any action to extend this concept to the entire body of Federal employment law. I would also say that having participated in arbitration I totally support the testimony of Mr. de Bernardo about its good impact on the workplace. Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. And with everybody, the whole statement, of course, will be part of the record. Our last witness is Professor Michael Foreman who is the Director of the Civil Rights Clinic at Penn State's Dickinson Section of Law. I understand, Professor, you teach a course on employment discrimination there; is that correct? Mr. Foreman. Yes, I teach advanced employment discrimination law. Chairman Leahy. Thank you very, very much. Please go ahead, sir. STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR MICHAEL FOREMAN, DIRECTOR, CIVIL RIGHTS APPELLATE CLINIC, DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Foreman. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to address these important issues and particularly the Gross decision and the Pyett decision and that line of cases that deal with pre- dispute binding arbitration. And particularly with an eye to has the court been misinterpreting Congressional intent and the meaning of these statutes? In my view that's a resounding yes in these cases they misinterpreted Congressional intent and they distort the purposes of these laws. I want to turn first to Gross. And I would be remiss if I don't point out that in Gross the majority of the Supreme Court took on an issue that was not before them. It was not in the petition for cert. It was not briefed. It was not briefed by either side. And, indeed, it was exactly opposite of what the Federal Government and the Solicitors Office recommended that they do. Despite all that, they chose to take on this case. And they sent, I think, a very important message to the Senate that if you want specific protections against discrimination in the workplace you, Congress, have to be very, very specific. And many of us believe you have been specific. But for this majority they say, no, not specific enough. It is very clear that Congress did not intend age discrimination to be treated differently from any of the other types of discrimination. But despite that, the majority concluded, in Gross, that you could no longer prove that age was a motivating factor. That is not enough any more in an age context. And in Mr. Gross' case he proved this was not discrimination in the area--in the air. He proved that this was a motivating factor and the jury made that conclusion. So contrary to my colleague's belief, the jury can deal with these issues and they deal with them every day. They had dealt with them. This is a standard that the Supreme Court rejected in Price Waterhouse, that Congress rejected in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and indeed they rejected almost 45 years ago when the Title VII and they rejected it solely because of language. Now, Chairman, you indicated one of the things we are trying to sort through is how do we sort the difference between what the headlines say and the reality. Well, the headlines were very clear, ``Gross makes it much more difficult for Plaintiffs to prevail in age discrimination cases.'' Another, ``Supreme Court majority makes it harder to prove discrimination.'' Another quote, ``The plaintiffs' job in court will be much more difficult.'' Now, how do these headlines match reality? Well, the court cases following that match perfectly. A case out of the Sixth Circuit which I have cited in my materials, ``In the Wake of Gross'' and this is a quote, ``it is not enough to show that age was a motivating factor.'' Another court quote, ``This court interprets Gross as elevating the quantum of causation required under the ADA.'' So it is very clear that what we heard about raising the burden of proof is in fact what happened. And it is leading to very strange, nonsensical results. I will cite just two quick cases. Because many courts are taking what the Supreme Court said and now saying, it must be the sole factor. In the Culver case where a person alleged discrimination because they were over 40 years old and race, the court says, well, you cannot win your age claim because you've pled another claim over here. You were out of court at the get-go. There is another line of cases that follow that line of cases. The third thing it does is it calls into question the jurisprudence under hundreds of discrimination statutes in Federal law and state law that used the term ``because of''. They had been interpreted consistently to mean, if the protected classification infecting the decision was a motivating factor, that is a violation of law, we will fight about damages. After Gross that is no longer the case. Turning quickly to the pre-dispute binding arbitration issue, this Congress worked for decades to come up with discrimination laws that provided open-forum, jury trials damages. You've also recognized that pre-dispute--that arbitration may have a role when you passed the Civil Rights Act. But I don't believe Congress ever envisioned that role to be pre-dispute, binding arbitration agreements placed in employee handbooks, in applications for employment, and basically shoved down employees' throats with no--no--and I stress that--consent. I want to address, very quickly, some of the statistics that I know my colleagues laid out about the importance of binding arbitration and how it is good for employees. Those studies deal with situations where a dispute has arisen and the person voluntarily enters into the agreement. And in those cases it is usually senior managers that have done this. They find arbitration to be good, but they have a dispute and they have volunteered to do it. That is not the case for most blue- collar workers. They have no choice. They have to give up a paycheck. In today's economy, they may have to choose between having a job and not having health care because they won't get the job if they refuse to sign a binding arbitration agreement. In this area, also, the court has sent a message to Congress that we are going to force people into employment binding arbitration unless you, Congress, tell us differently. They said that explicitly in the Pyett case. And to paraphrase Justice Ginsberg from the Ledbetter case, when you get that challenge thrown down, ``the ball is in Congress' court.'' I stand here ready to answer any questions on either the binding arbitration or on the Gross decision. And I thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Professor. You echoed a point I had made earlier and actually made yesterday and actually made a number of times on the Gross case that the Supreme Court seemed to be looking for an ability to come out with law that they wanted to make. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but, don't you find it unusual that a CERT was granted on a different reason, the sides did not argue this issue, it was not part of the debate, the Solicitor General did not, and yet they reached the decision they did. Is that a typical thing in the Supreme Court? Mr. Foreman. That is extremely atypical to the extent that the majority dropped a footnote to try to explain why they were talking away from this and they were called to task appropriately by the dissent in that case. That the Supreme Court grants CERT on a very specific issue. The issue was--I don't want to say, ``a no brainer'' but the issue that they granted CERT on was this whole issue on the age context. You need direct evidence in order to get a mixed motive instruction to the jury. That was what they granted CERT on. That's what-- there were probably 40 briefs filed. That's what everyone briefed. No one saw this decision coming. And a five-person majority walked out of their way to take this on and change the burden of proof in all age cases and change possibly the burden of proof on all employment discrimination cases where you have not specifically said there is a motivating factor standard of proof. Chairman Leahy. I know at the time I was pretty surprised with such an activist court. And it acting as a legislative body and a judicial body all at once. And I guess maybe as a Vermonter I am somewhat old fashioned. I think of the judiciary acting as a judiciary, the legislative body acting as a legislative body, the executive is the executive body and not have the judiciary become the legislative body too. It makes it--having argued an awful lot of appellate cases in the Second Circuit in the Vermont Supreme Court, I would find myself at somewhat of a disadvantage if court decided that, gosh you have a nice case. We know what you are supposed to talk about, but we've decided to do something entirely different. It puts both sides pretty much at a disadvantage unless they have already made up their mind to rule for one side. Mr. Foreman. And, if I may, it raises this other issue that--and I need to be delicate because I'm talking to the Senate, but by the same token, that the court, the majority specifically says, you did not say in 1991 that this would be the causation standard in the age context. Therefore we are not going to adopt what virtually every court had said the standard was. We are going to ignore what the meaning of the 1991 law is. Chairman Leahy. Of course that--don't worry about being delicate with the Senate. [Laughter.] Chairman Leahy. The hundred of us certainly aren't with each other at all. [Laughter.] Chairman Leahy. You should sit in on some of our private meetings. Mr. Foreman. Well, they took you to task and said, go ahead and move forward and change the law if you don't like what we've done. Chairman Leahy. But they also overruled the precedent of every other court including some of their own decisions. I had never had any problem with the law as written. I mean, this came out of the blue. It overturned a whole lot of cases. Everybody else seemed to understand what the--as did four of the nine members of the Supreme Court what the law was. Am I correct? Mr. Foreman. Yes, you are correct in a point. But I don't want us to lose sight of the tentacles of the Gross decision because they reach very deep. And I don't want to get bogged down on legalese but there is a case---- Chairman Leahy. I just have a---- [Simultaneous conversation.] Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman---- Chairman Leahy. If I wasn't worried about the tentacles of the case, we wouldn't be holding this hearing today. Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Foreman. There's a case called McDonnell Douglas v. Greene that has been cited thousands, tens of thousands, it is a standard way to prove discrimination cases, age, race, sex, we teach it in law school every day. The Supreme Court dropped a footnote and said, we don't acknowledge whether the McDonnell Douglas standard even applies to these age cases. And the lower courts are now taking that and running with it and putting a different burden on age discrimination cases and ignoring the McDonnell Douglas. It is so deep that the Congress really must act to fix it. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Fox, you wanted to say something? Mr. Fox. Yes. It is not really my role to defend the Supreme Court. I think they can do it capably themselves. But I would point out that if they had answered the question that they granted CERT on, that would have presumed the answer to the question that they ultimately answered in the reverse. Since they decided that it was not a proper instruction for age cases, it made no sense to decide under what standard you would give that instruction. So their really only choice was to either rule as they did or to say that writ was improvidently-- writ was improvidently granted and that would have then just delayed the inevitable. Also, the issue was raised in the respondent's brief when they asked that Price Waterhouse be overruled, if necessary. And with respect to the McDonnell Douglas test, although that is in the footnote, I don't think there is any question that the McDonnell Douglas standard remains the same. And, in fact, that is what I would say 99 percent of all cases including age cases are tried under. The mixed motive analysis is not used in the real world. And when it is used, it causes complexity and complication and ends up with situations like happened to Mr. Gross. If he had gone in with a straightforward instruction I have no doubt he would have won the trial, just as he did. But what would have been avoided were two appeals and now the possibility of having to retry it again. Chairman Leahy. We could differ on that. We'll get back to that later. But I want to go to--and I will--and I appreciate you stepping forward. But I will let you and Mr. Foreman speak to this again. Ms. Jones, the Fifth Circuit recently ruled that you actually could pursue some of your claims before a jury. Those are the claims related to sexual assault. I was a prosecutor and proud to be. The people involved in that I couldn't help but think I would be charging them with numerous kinds of assault. And I have to feel that if convicted our courts in Vermont would send them to prison for a long time. But your former employer KBR or Halliburton argued the brutal sexual assault was somehow related to your employment and therefore had to be handled in arbitration tends to defy common sense. That's the argument they took, you had to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. And now they are actually moving to rehear. What kind of a signal does this send to women in the workplace? Ms. Jones. Well, first of all, corporations do this by---- Chairman Leahy. Is your---- Ms. Jones. It is very apparent to me through working with the Foundation and working with other women and my past experience, that corporations can adopt arbitration as a way to wipe clean the record of all disputes that have arisen. And if women before me that had been sexually assaulted working overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan or anyplace that we were deployed, if they were able to go and sit in front of a trial by jury, that would have been public record. I would have known before going to Iraq what I was getting into and likely this would have never occurred. I feel like this sends a clear message that the corporations are able to have more power than the individual. And I don't think it's right. And I think that it's important for people to be aware of such practices that arbitration has cast upon the workers. Chairman Leahy. Considering the position that Halliburton has taken on this, is it safe to say you would much rather the decision of how you might be treated would be done by an impartial court and jury rather than an arbitration system they might have helped set up? Ms. Jones. Well, Halliburton would hire my arbitrator. And they are taking the position that a sexual assault is part of employment. Why would I ever want to walk into an arbitration knowing that they hired the arbitrator and knowing that that's how they feel about sexual assault? Do you think I'm going to win? And if I win, do you think I'll win much? Or do you think I will win just to be quiet? Chairman Leahy. We are agreeing with each other, Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones. Exactly. [Laughter.] Chairman Leahy. And if we weren't, I wouldn't be holding this hearing. [Laughter.] Chairman Leahy. And Mr. Gross, Senator Franken has had to go vote another Committee and I was going to ask you one more question and then I'm going to have to step out for a moment, myself and turn the gavel over to Senator Franken, but I'll be right back. Do you think it's fair to ask victims of discrimination to prove that age was the decisive factor for discrimination; especially when they often lack access to necessary records that employers possess that might help them prove their case? Mr. Gross. Senator Leahy, I don't think there is anything particularly complicated about the jury instruction. My fellow Iowans who served on the jury, I believe, understood the rule of law perfectly and came to the sound understanding, especially with the final thing they heard was that if you can find any reason other than age for their actions, you have to find in favor of Farm Bureau. Now, that's pretty clear. To me that just eliminates everything else. I had made the prima facie case. There was age discrimination, they could find no other reason after a week of testimony evidence. They boiled it down to this, there is one sole cause for what happened here. And as Justice Souter said during the hearings, a lot of times, juries are just smarter than judges. And I tend to believe that was the case. They knew that age was not only a motivating factor, they knew that--actually, I think if we had to go back and try this, and it's been 7 years already, 10 percent of my life is invested in this. I really don't want to start over. But if we had to start over, even under this new one, I'm confident that we would win. However, that does not mean that it was a good decision. I was terribly disillusioned about how they broke with their own protocol to come to their conclusion. As has already been mentioned, they almost ignored the issue that the CERT was granted on. They allowed new evidence--a new argument to be introduced right at the last minute. I don't think that--well, there's just a number of things that I think broke with protocol. As the claims guy, I taught a lot of adjusters over the years, and the first thing I taught them and the most important thing was to never do anything that could create any appearance of impropriety or self-conflict. And I expected no less than that from the highest court in the land. And I thought I saw a lot of things that just plain disillusioned me about how our Supreme Court system functioned in my case. Chairman Leahy. I am glad of the comment by my fellow New Englander, Justice Souter. But let's go back to the Midwest, Senator Franken. Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, for calling this hearing. Thank you to all the witnesses. I am sorry I had to make a vote on another Committee so I missed Mr. Fox and Mr. Foreman. First, I just want to say something to Ms. Jones. Yesterday we had an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations and we passed the bill, quite handily, saying that we are not going to hire contractors who do mandatory, binding arbitration on things like sexual assault. Ms. Jones. Uh-huh. Senator Franken. We had a little press thing afterwards and I talked about your courage and your persistence. One thing I left out is your strength, and I want to thank you for that. Ms. Jones. Thanks. Senator Franken. You are an amazing young woman. Ms. Jones. Thank you. Senator Franken. Mr. de Bernardo said that you have had your day in court. Ms. Jones. He did say that. Senator Franken. Isn't it true that what you have been in court doing is trying to get your day in court? Ms. Jones. Exactly. I wanted to quote him, actually, justice denied is--wait, ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' Senator Franken. He did say that in his testimony. Ms. Jones. I totally agree with that. I have been fighting arbitration for 4 years. I have been wanting my day in front of a trial by jury for 4 years. I don't believe that claims like this should ever be in front an arbitrator. They need to be public knowledge. They don't need to be private, discrete, and binding. So I feel that what Bernardo said was accurate about justice delayed is justice denied. But those of us that need this as public knowledge need to not go in front of a secret arbitrator. I was also curious if Bernardo represents individuals or corporations. And also if the polled employees represented likely include people who have gone through the process or have not gone through the process. Senator Franken. Well---- Ms. Jones. So I was kind of curious about that. Senator Franken.--I'll ask the questions here, Ms. Jones. [Laughter.] Senator Franken. And I do have a question for Mr. Bernardo. [Laughter.] Senator Franken. You put in your written-- Mr. de Bernardo. It's de Bernardo. Senator Franken. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. de Bernardo. Excuse me. You said in your written testimony--you write in your written testimony you cite something which, by the way in the footnotes I can't--you cite essentially page 30 of a 10-page report. That employees have a 63 percent chance of prevailing in arbitration and a 43 percent chance of prevailing in employment litigation, forgetting the fact that the Committee couldn't actually look that up. Would you consider if Jamie Leigh had gotten a settlement of $50 that she would have prevailed under this definition? Mr. de Bernardo. Senator Franken---- Senator Franken. Please answer yes or no, sir. Mr. de Bernardo. Not yes or no, let me just say---- Senator Franken. Please answer yes or no, sir. Are you saying no? Mr. de Bernardo. I say no. Senator Franken. So, in other words, if the statistics on who prevailed and who didn't prevail, what would she have needed to have gotten? $100? Would she have prevailed if she had gotten $100? Mr. de Bernardo. You know, I think this is a distinction without a difference. What we are talking about---- Senator Franken. Answer yes or no, please, sir. Mr. de Bernardo. The question is, what is the number that counts as prevailing? Senator Franken. I think that is sort of the question; isn't it? Mr. de Bernardo. You know, what I am looking at is the research that's been done, the studies that have been done on who prevails in---- Senator Franken. Yeah. And I'm saying, what's prevailing? Mr. de Bernardo. I don't know what their definition is going to be. Senator Franken. So you don't know what their definition is. So when you said, ``no'' you didn't know whether that was true or not, did you? Mr. de Bernardo. Well---- Senator Franken. Did you? Mr. de Bernardo.--Senator, if we are talking about an assault or a sexual assault or assault and battery or false imprisonment, that is not what I am here to address. What I am here to address---- Senator Franken. That's what this case was about, sir. [Simultaneous conversation.] Senator Franken. And the company--sir, please. The company asserted that it had the right to arbitrate. In fact, she's been in court 4 years because this--and, by the way, they are appealing again. So you write something that you didn't know about, that 63 percent of the time the employees prevail. So, presumably if they, as far as you know, if she had gotten $50, that would have counted under your 63 percent. And would she also have prevailed if she got $50 and that the price of that was her silence? Mr. de Bernardo. You know, Senator, I would like to respond, not in yes or no, but a little bit more broadly. Senator Franken. Go ahead. Mr. de Bernardo. And the answer is we go to the research that is out there. We go to the statistics that are available. They're reliable statistics from credible, neutral sources. As for prevailing, this is an awful set of facts that Ms. Jones alleges---- Senator Franken. I just asked you a question, would that be considered onerous to say that she prevailed? Because that seems to be part of your case that this is better for employees. That's your case. So I am asking, what do those statistics mean? And you don't seem to know what they mean. Mr. de Bernardo. Well, I do know what they mean---- Senator Franken. OK. For example---- Mr. de Bernardo.--because the overwhelming majority of times, 99.9999 percent of the time the facts aren't going to be anything near what we are talking about here. It's not going to---- Senator Franken. But here they are the facts here and she's been in court for 4 years, sir. Mr. de Bernardo. There's a criminal situation, there's a civil action that---- Senator Franken. She had no criminal--this took place in Iraq. So at that time she had no recourse, sir. Mr. de Bernardo. All right. Senator Franken. She has not had her day in court, sir. She has litigated to have her day in court, sir, Mr. de Bernardo. Mr. de Bernardo. I would like to address that issue. I would like to address that issue in terms---- Senator Franken. No. No, please answer my question, sir. Mr. de Bernardo. OK. Senator Franken. I read some of your testimony to Ms. Jones. You said, ``the net result of the use of arbitration is better work places.'' Mr. de Bernardo. Correct. Senator Franken. Better work places. Mr. de Bernardo. Correct. Senator Franken. She was housed with 400 men. She told KBR twice that she was being sexually harassed. She was drugged by men that the KBR employment people knew did this kind of thing. She was raped, gang raped. She had to have reconstructive surgery, sir. They had this arbitration. Now, if that created a better work place. And then she was locked in a shipping container with an armed guard. Now, my question to you is, if that's a better work place, what was the work place like before? That's a rhetorical question. I am not really asking that question. They had binding arbitration at KBR. And because of that, and they asserted it on cases like this. Ms. Jones, in your foundation, you have heard from other women who were raped; is that not true? Ms. Jones. Yes, sir, I have. Senator Franken. And women who under arbitration---- Ms. Jones. Yes, sir. Senator Franken.--were told to keep silent; is that right? Ms. Jones. Exactly. Senator Franken. And because of that silence you didn't know about anything like this, did you? Ms. Jones. Exactly. I didn't know. It was not public knowledge, unfortunately. I think it was a very big injustice for it not to be public knowledge. It was an injustice for me and all future mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, who want to go to Iraq that don't know about all of the crimes that have occurred overseas. Because it's been in secret arbitration, it's a big injustice. Senator Franken. And when Mr. de Bernardo said that you had your day in court, what was your reaction? Ms. Jones. I was livid, sir. Four years to fight to get in court is not a day in court. Senator Franken. I was livid too. This is the result of your binding, mandatory arbitration, Mr. de Bernardo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Mr. de Bernardo, you wanted to say more and I don't want to cut you off. Obviously I'll give you a chance to do that. But let me ask you this question. Mr. de Bernardo. I do want to say more when we have a chance. Chairman Leahy. I'll give you that. But when you do it could you also answer this. If arbitration is cheaper for both sides, it's fair for both sides, it's easier for both sides, then why not have voluntary arbitration? Mr. de Bernardo. OK. Should I make my comment or respond to that first? Chairman Leahy. Do both. Whatever you---- Mr. de Bernardo. I guess I'll start with your question, Mr. Chairman, which is, this is the issue of pre-dispute versus post-dispute. And there is the option of doing post-dispute now, but it is not used. Because as a practical matter, once you've gone through the process by which an individual approaches a plaintiff's lawyer, secures a plaintiff's lawyer, and they accept less than 5 percent of the people who go in who wish for representation, they're convinced--that plaintiff's lawyer is convinced that this case has a significant enough chance of receiving either a settlement or damages that would entice them to carry it forward and work on this case. We all have limited time and resources, I understand that. A complaint has been filed and either the lawsuit or the charge has been filed. And, in effect, the individual has reconciled to this point that they're--mentally that they're going to do battle with their employer. You know, it's too late at that point post-dispute arbitration as a practical matter doesn't occur. It's very, very rare in the United States now when there is the option for that. Chairman Leahy. But, it would be---- Mr. de Bernardo. Of course it would be rare later---- Chairman Leahy. If there's no option it's a moot point. That's my question. I mean, why not give the alternative? You've testified, if I understand your testimony correctly, in favor of these arbitrary arbitration clauses---- Mr. de Bernardo. Correct. Chairman Leahy.--like the one that Ms. Jones faced. And I would be one of the first to agree that there are many, many times arbitration makes a great deal of sense. In private practice, I was involved at different times in arbitration and it made a lot of sense. But, shouldn't that be something where each of the parties has that option? Not that requirement, but that option? Mr. de Bernardo. Well, if it is a post-dispute vis-a-vis pre-dispute, it hasn't been used and it's not going to be used. So, you know, should it be an option? As a practical matter it wouldn't be an option that would be in use. That's the bottom line. That's why I say that this legislation, the Arbitration Fairness Act, if it were enacted, would end arbitration employment in the United States. Effectively it would abolish it because the overwhelming majority of arbitrations which occur are based on pre-dispute agreements. Chairman Leahy. Now, you wanted to say something further to---- Mr. de Bernardo. Well, yeah, you know---- Chairman Leahy.--Senator Franken---- Mr. de Bernardo.--we're not a court of law. We are not here to--I am not familiar with many, most, the entire record in terms of the situation involving Ms. Jones. I have said how I thought that this is a terrible situation with terrible facts. What I do want to say is, if we're talking about justice in the United States and who has access to justice, arbitration provides a means by which employees, most specifically employees, have tremendous access that they otherwise would not have. If S. 931 were enacted, those 95 percent plus of employees who now have their issues addressed and resolved would not have that option. Because, you know, the first threshold that I talk about is the fact that the plaintiffs' bar is only going to accept less than 5 percent of the cases that are brought to them. The second thing is, the motions practice, there was some reference to that earlier, and as cited in the testimony a study by the National Work Rights Institute, 3,400 cases, 60 percent of those were decided by pre-trial motions, motions for summary judgment, motions for dismissal. And in 98 percent of the time the employers prevailed. So you can't get that threshold to get to court. If you get to court it's likely you are going to have it dismissed. Even if it goes to--you know, 1.3 percent of the cases in the Federal court system go to trial. The vast majority of those are not jury trials. So, you know, this idea that everybody has their day---- Chairman Leahy. Of course, a great number of them are settled too. Mr. de Bernardo. What's that? Chairman Leahy. A great number of them are settled. Mr. de Bernardo. Correct. Chairman Leahy. OK. Senator Franken. Senator Franken. I just want to---- Chairman Leahy. We can be a little more flexible on the time because there is only the two of us here because there are so many other committees meeting. Senator Franken. So does this 5 percent include the ones that have been settled or not? Here's my--I guess then I have a bigger--larger question. Mr. de Bernardo. OK. Senator Franken. In the statistics you cite in your written testimony and in your present testimony, are these things that you are actually familiar with? Mr. de Bernardo. Yes, I would say---- Senator Franken. Well, you weren't familiar with the other statistic and what 67 percent prevailing meant. Mr. de Bernardo. Sixty-three percent. Senator Franken. Now, I'm asking you another question and you seem stymied. Does the 5 percent include those that have been settled? Mr. de Bernardo. You know, I have many, many statistics that are cited in many footnotes. And I will say, if that's from the National Work Rights Institute instant survey, many of these statistics are from the National Work Rights Institute. That is headed up by the former head of---- Senator Franken. I just want to know what the statistic---- [Simultaneous conversation.] Mr. de Bernardo.--the employee rights---- Senator Franken.--means. [Simultaneous conversation.] Senator Franken. I want to know if---- Mr. de Bernardo.--reliable statistic, Senator, yes, I do. Senator Franken. That's not what I asked. I didn't ask if it was a reliable statistic. Reliable about what? That's what I'm asking, what is it reliable about? You're talking about-- you're saying that employees don't have access to hearing their case because only 5 percent get heard. And I'm asking what that means? What that 5 percent means and you don't seem to know. Mr. de Bernardo. No, what it means is that plaintiffs' attorneys are not going to take every case that comes into their offices---- Senator Franken. I want to know what the 5 percent statistic means, sir. If you don't know, just say you don't know. Could you do that, at least? Mr. de Bernardo. Well, I do know. There's a survey that says that less than 5 percent of the time plaintiffs' attorneys are going to accept the cases that come to them. The plaintiffs' bar, the plaintiffs' attorneys that I deal with would readily admit that. There are many, many cases that come in and they're going to say no unless they're convinced that-- -- Senator Franken. What if you went to 20 attorneys, would that mean 100 percent of the cases are taken? Mr. de Bernardo. You know---- Senator Franken. Let me--let me---- Mr. de Bernardo.--100 percent of the grievances--Senator, if I could respond? One hundred percent of the grievances that are filed in arbitration programs and dispute resolution programs are addressed. Senator Franken. Yeah, and you told me that---- Mr. de Bernardo. Less than 5 percent of litigation---- [Simultaneous conversation.] Senator Franken.--that you don't know if $50 to Ms. Jones would be considered in your statistic of whether that would be her prevailing. So you don't really know too much about your statistics. Mr. de Bernardo. There are two studies---- Senator Franken. Here's another statistic, sir, from the National Work Rights Institute. Mr. de Bernardo. Senator, could I respond? Senator Franken. No, give me a second here. Mr. de Bernardo. OK. Senator Franken. Found that the mean damages awarded by arbitrations was 49,000, the mean damages awarded by district courts is $530,000. That seems to be more beneficial to the employee; doesn't it? Mr. de Bernardo. Sure. Those numbers would be more beneficial to the employee. Senator Franken. Thank you, sir. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. de Bernardo. I would respond, if I can? Chairman Leahy. Go ahead. Mr. de Bernardo. That there are two surveys that I am familiar with. I am not familiar with that survey. The two surveys that are detailed and discussed and cited in my testimony both found that the median or the mean or the average awards given in arbitration in fact either exceed or are just slightly less than what happens in litigation. And, in fact, in the vast majority of times, if you are talking about arbitration, you also don't have the 33 to 40 percent that has to go to the plaintiffs' attorney plus expenses as well. So in fact the net---- Chairman Leahy. Mr. de Bernardo---- Mr. de Bernardo.--I'm talking about for the average employee. Chairman Leahy. Those studies---- Mr. de Bernardo. The average situation, the average employee, they are more likely to get their issue addressed. They are more likely to prevail and they are more likely to receive a larger return if they go to arbitration than if they go to litigation. Chairman Leahy. And those statistics are in your testimony? Mr. de Bernardo. They are, Senator. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. So they will be before the Committee. Appreciate that. Mr. de Bernardo. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Leahy. Professor Foreman, Circuit City and Gross, do these make it more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to seek relief in the court and does it--and if you do get into court, does it put further obstacles in your path in going before a jury? Mr. Foreman. I mean, without a doubt. And I think there is a consensus opinion that Gross makes it harder for people to prove age discrimination. The courts have all said that, the media have said that, the academic literature said that. There is no debate. It is harder if you are a victim of age discrimination after Gross to prove your burden. And on the binding arbitration, Circuit City opened the doors for arbitration of employment discrimination claims and what happened is employers en mass adopted these. Almost 30 percent of employers now have some type of pre-dispute binding arbitration. And I really want the Committee to focus on what we heard from the employment community today. And what this Committee was told was, well, you couldn't give the employee a choice because they would choose not to go into binding arbitration. When arbitration works is when we put it in employee applications and handbooks where they don't really see it, they don't have any ability to react. But the comment was made once they know their rights, once they get an attorney, then maybe they will choose not to go into binding arbitration because they know there is not as much discovery, they don't have as many appeal rights, and sort of combining the two issues there's limited discovery in arbitration. Under the Gross decision the plaintiff has the burden of proof and they have the burden of proving by some courts that age was the sole motive. Well, with limited discovery and a higher burden, how does a plaintiff ever win in these claim cases? And a bit on the statistics and Senator Franken, I think you covered the prevailing party issue. I am not going to touch on that at all. Senator Franken. Please. [Laughter.] Mr. Foreman. But the statistics that the employment community relies on are those bargained-for exchanges. They are not pre-dispute binding arbitration by blue-collar workers. If you want statistics that have done that analysis, they're cited in footnote 50 of my materials. They are not my statistics, they are not a think tank's statistics, they are an analysis and it comes out two ways. One, plaintiffs win less in arbitrations, and they win less money in arbitrations across the board. And I think that's what this Senate needs to deal with is how do you do this balance to allow employees to have a free choice. After a dispute has arisen is a different category than in pre-dispute binding arbitration where there is no agreement. And I think, Senator Franken, you raise a very good point in the bill that you've introduced. Is it a time to revisit Circuit City and determine whether when Congresses passes these very meaningful statutes, freedom from discrimination based on race and sex, they should be subject to binding arbitration at all. Chairman Leahy. Well, I'm going to have to be leaving, but Senator Specter is here. I am going over to him to ask questions. So that nobody will feel that they have been in any way cutoff, any one of you, I will keep the record open for 1 week for you to add to any statement you have made or wish to add to this so the record will be complete. I have found this to be a very good and very worthwhile hearing. Senator Specter, I will yield to you. Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I came to meet with you and I will stay around for that. I am going to ask just one question. I came in late, but I have been very deeply involved in this issue as it's been percolating for a long time. As you professionals know, there has been a lot of talk about the arbitration provision in the Employee Free Choice Act. And my question is for you, Mr. de Bernardo. I heard your last response to Senator Franken's question. The business interests have been very much opposed to any kind of arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act even last best offer, which very sharply restricts the arbitrator's choice. Of the arguments which you have made, I heard the tail end, of the advantages of arbitration and how much you are pushing it, obviously in the context as an alternative to litigation. But in the context of all of the virtues you extol as to arbitration, doesn't that pretty much cut out the efficacy or weight of business' opposition to arbitration in the context in the Employee Free Choice Act proposals? Mr. de Bernardo. Senator, I think we are talking about apples and oranges. I would say no as my response. One is arbitration---- Senator Specter. I am not surprised at your response. Now tell me why? Mr. de Bernardo. One is arbitration in lieu of litigation the other is arbitration in lieu of collective bargaining. They are totally different situations. What is analogous in a union sector to what happens in the non-union sector in terms of employment arbitration is the arbitrations that occur when there is a collective bargaining agreement for employee disputes which are common, and is sacrosanct to the labor movement. When the labor movement, has tried to--when they've tried to export unionization to Mexico, Central America, and South America, they call for arbitration of employment disputes. So in an organized labor setting, arbitration of employment disputes is in fact as entrenched as it is in our jurisprudence system in the non-union sector. In EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act, what we are talking about there is arbitration in lieu of collective bargaining, a totally different situation whereby you would have very, very little incentive or no incentive for the union representative to reach agreement with the employer because they would rather go to an arbitrator on a very expedited, quicky basis and have a third party make a decision in terms of what the terms and conditions of employment are long term including wages, benefits, and a whole host of other terms and conditions of employment. They are really not analogous situations. Senator Specter. Just a concluding comment, I am aware of that distinction. I am aware of that argument. Mr. de Bernardo. I am sure you are, Senator. Appreciate that. Senator Specter. The consequence of collective bargaining has been unsuccessful about half of the cases where there is no first contract and a year passes and then a move is made for decertification and sometimes better resourced employers are able to outweigh the union. So what the Congress has to decide is whether you need a little push on collective bargaining. And if there is arbitration even limited to the last best offer, which restricts the arbitrator's discretion, that isn't an appropriate conclusion to implement collective bargaining with the thought that if there is that end product that people will be a lot more anxious to come to agreements without even having the limited last best offer. But these are weighty issues and I compliment the Chairman and the Committee for taking it up and we will be spending a lot of attention. Mr. de Bernardo. Sir, if I could respond just briefly, I would say that EFCA doesn't represent a little push, it's a huge push, it's a knock-down, drag-out push. So, you know, if there are problems that need to be addressed that is an over response, frankly, analogous to what I think is with S. 931, which is an over response to--you know, are there reforms that are necessary? Certainly that's a possibility. Are there reforms that I would support? Yes, there are. But it is not to completely abolish arbitration in employment in America today. Senator Specter. I will use the prerogative of the chair to have the last word. You say there are possibly reforms. I look at Mr. Gross and Ms. Jones I'd say that's a good possibility. Thank you. We stand in recess. [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56089.285