[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 28 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E407-E408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS PROCEDURES PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 6, 1997

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with Representative 
Connie

[[Page E408]]

Morella and a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce the Civil 
Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1997. This bill is designed to 
reassert workers' rights to have their claims of unlawful employment 
discrimination.
  Recently employers and even whole industries have sought to 
circumvent civil rights laws by forcing employees to sign away the 
fundamental rights to a court hearing. As a condition of hiring or 
promotion, a growing number of employers are requiring workers to agree 
to submit any future claims of job discrimination to binding 
arbitration panels. This practice, called mandatory arbitration, is 
engaged in most prominently by the securities industry, but is also 
increasingly relied upon by employers in information technology, health 
care, engineering, and other fields. Together, they are reducing civil 
rights protection to the status of the company car: a perk which can be 
denied at will.
  The U.S. Constitution guarantees every citizen equal justice under 
law. Forcing employees to choose between their civil rights and their 
job denies them their right to equal justice. Employees who consent to 
mandatory arbitration give up their right to due process, trial by 
jury, the appeals process, and full discovery.
  By no means, do I wish to denounce arbitration in general. Voluntary 
arbitration in an impartial setting can be a fair and inexpensive way 
to resolve a wide range of disputes. But when it is forcibly imposed on 
one party with inherently less bargaining power, it ceases to be of 
value.
  Mandatory arbitration of civil rights is wrong even if the 
arbitration process were a balanced one. But, too often, it has a 
semblance of impartiality. The securities industry, in particular, has 
transformed a potentially impartial and independent judicial 
environment into one where neutrality and independence are virtually 
nonexistent. A 1994 GAO study of the security industries' arbitration 
process found that vast majority of securities arbitrators are white 
men over 60 with little or no expertise in the area of employment law. 
At best such a setting has the appearance of unfairness; at worst, it 
is a tainted forum in which an employee can never be guaranteed a truly 
fair hearing. Like forcing employees to buy goods at the company store, 
the price of such so-called justice is just too high.
  Our legislation would protect the rights of workers to bring claims 
against their employers in cases of employment discrimination. By 
amending seven Federal civil rights statutes to make it clear that the 
powers and procedures provided under those laws are the exclusive ones 
that apply only when a claim arises, the Civil Rights Procedures 
Protection Act would prevent discrimination claims from being 
involuntarily sent to binding arbitration. In short, this bill prevents 
employers in all industries from forcing employees to give up their 
right to go to court when they are discriminated against on account of 
race, sex, religion, disability, or other illegal criteria.
  By reinforcing the fundamental rights established under various civil 
rights and fair employment practice laws, our bill restores integrity 
to employer-employee relationships. No employer should be permitted to 
ask workers to check their constitutional and civil rights at the front 
door.

                          ____________________