[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CIVIL RIGHTS PROCEDURES PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PATRICIA SCHROEDER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 27, 1996

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, today I and my colleague, Representative 
Markey, are introducing the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act, 
which reasserts the rights of employees to take their employers to 
court for unlawful discrimination.
  This legislation would prevent employers from requiring employees to 
check their rights as American citizens at the front door and agree to 
submit, sometimes unknowingly, to binding mandatory arbitration as a 
term or condition of hiring, continued employment, or promotion.
  What started as a practice mainly in the securities industry has now 
spread to a significant number of Fortune 500 companies. The General 
Accounting Office estimates that in 5 years, over half of all employees 
in the United States may be bound by mandatory arbitration contracts.
  Mandatory arbitration forces employees to choose between their 
employment and their civil and constitutional rights, such as trial by 
jury and due process. Employees are forced to submit to arbitration 
boards that are often set up in a discriminatory fashion. For example, 
in the securities industry, boards are handpicked by the executives 
from the industry, who choose from a pool dominated by their peers. 
They are hardly neutral. Employees also face difficulties in obtaining 
injunctions, bringing class action suits, and conducting meaningful 
pretrial factfinding because employers hold most files and information.

  My bill would amend seven Federal civil rights and workplace fairness 
statutes to make it clear that the powers and procedures available 
under those laws are the exclusive ones that apply to a claim that 
arises. It does not condemn alternative dispute resolution; it makes it 
clear that an employee can voluntarily choose to submit a case to 
arbitration after the claim arises.
  Since my first introduction of this bill, a number of women have 
brought stories to my attention about their own dealings with mandatory 
arbitration, which highlight the need for change. One such case 
involved a woman who attempted to bring a charge of age discrimination. 
She had worked at a clerical position with a company for 13 years and 
was 58 years of age when her job was terminated. She applied for 
another job within the company for which she was well-qualified. The 
job went to a younger woman who had been with the company for only 3 
years and had no training or experience. She initiated a complaint 
under the company's internal appeals process. After enduring three 
rounds of appeals, the woman was dissatisfied with what she felt were 
the appeal boards inaccurate and inconsistent conclusions. But she 
cannot seek appeal outside of the company because she signed a waiver, 
revoking her right to trial by jury.
  Mr. Speaker, when voluntary, arbitration and mediation can be an 
efficient and effective method of resolving differences and reducing 
the courtloads of civil and criminal courts. But the key word is 
voluntary. No one should be forced to choose between their job and 
their civil rights. This bill restores integrity to employee-employer 
relationships.

                          ____________________