[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 144 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7588-H7592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     RAISING AWARENESS OF DAMAGE DONE BY MANDATORY ARBITRATION AND 
                        SUPPORTING THE FAIR ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in the 
Democratic Women's Caucus in hosting this Special Order hour to raise 
awareness of the damage done by mandatory arbitration and of our 
support for H.R. 1423, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or 
as we refer to it, the FAIR Act.
  We are pleased that the Judiciary Committee is holding a markup on 
this bill as we speak.
  Madam Speaker, what is stunning about this issue is that a recent 
study found that one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to 
win an arbitration case. In fact, the 5-year study found that, of 6,000 
claims that were made on arbitration clauses, money awards were 
provided in only 137 cases.
  Today, my colleagues will read accounts from just some of the women 
who have experienced this miscarriage of justice firsthand. Over 60 
million workers are subject to forced arbitration, but even those 
staggering numbers fail to fully illustrate the suffering and human 
plight caused by mandatory arbitration.
  Today, we share the experiences of women fighting back against the 
silence and shame, and we join them in demanding systemic change so 
that all workers are treated with the dignity and respect that they 
deserve.
  Sterling Jewelers, known to many of us as Jared Jewelers or Kay 
Jewelers--Diane Acampora. Perhaps no company better exemplifies the 
harm caused by mandatory arbitration than Sterling Jewelers.
  In April 2019, The New York Times Magazine published a story on the 
ongoing, decade-long pay-and-promotion lawsuit against Sterling 
Jewelers, which at one point included nearly 70,000 women. These 
stories should outrage each of us.
  Diane of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, said that, after 5 years at Kay 
Jewelers and 6 years of experience at another store, she made $2 to $4 
less per hour than her more recently hired, lesser experienced male 
colleagues.
  According to the investigation, ``When she was promoted to manager, 
she attended the company's annual managers' meeting in Florida. On a 
shuttle bus back to the resort, she was pulled onto the lap of a 
manager, who held her tightly as he fondled her. At the same meeting, a 
district manager tried to kiss her. At a later meeting, she had to 
leave a hot tub because discussion turned uncomfortably sexual. She was 
later told that the hot-tub scene turned into an orgy.''
  And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
  ``There was Amanda Barger, a sales associate who made her way up to 
assistant manager, who after 5 years of employment complained that she 
was still making her starting salary but was brushed off by her 
manager; who watched the new guy who previously worked at a cell phone-
cover kiosk be promoted ahead of her; who dared to complain to HR after 
her district manager invited her to a Chili's with a few other managers 
and, while they were eating, texted her from across the table, `I want 
to come on your tits.'''
  Marie Wolf's manager didn't seem to like her, despite the fact that 
she was a top salesperson at Jared. She didn't have ``the Jared look,'' 
the manager told a colleague.
  ``Marie was tall and wore pants and blouses, not short skirt-suits, 
and she wore little makeup. One day, Marie asked for a raise, and the 
manager told her she was already making more than any other salesperson 
in the store.'' Not surprisingly, that was far from the truth.
  Or, ``Tammy Zenner, who was called `Texas Tammy' by her colleagues 
because of the size of her breasts and who complained to her store 
manager that an executive visiting the store had rubbed himself against 
her from behind but was told when she complained that she should be 
flattered.''
  The culture of rampant gender discrimination, pay inequity, and 
sexual harassment at Sterling is the stuff of living nightmares 
suffered by so many working women, many of whom are the primary, if not 
only, breadwinner for their families.
  Diane, Amanda, Marie, and Tammy are just 4 of nearly 70,000 women who 
have at some point joined the lawsuit against Sterling. And Sterling 
was able to hide the details of these allegations from its shareholders 
and from the public because all of their employees are forced to sign a 
forced arbitration agreement upon being hired.
  That means all work-related disputes had to go through Sterling's in-
house dispute resolution system, effectively gagging employees and 
destroying any chance of positive change.
  It also, undoubtedly, resulted in countless other women facing 
similar types of abuse and discrimination. That is why the experiences 
of these women are so important for us to hear, so that Congress will 
pass the FAIR Act.

                              {time}  1600

  It is unacceptable that millions of employees are subjected to a 
system

[[Page H7589]]

that forces them to settle disputes through mandatory arbitration, 
where the company can control the process and shroud the outcome in 
secrecy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the FAIR Act and strike a blow in the 
fight for fairness and transparency. No one should have to suffer 
harassment, assault, and degradation in silence in order to support 
themselves and their families and pursue their career dreams.
  ``Every kiss begins with Kay Jewelers'' should be a jingle, not a job 
requirement. When couples are shopping for wedding rings, I hope they 
stay away from retail jewelers that treat women like sex toys or 
second-class citizens.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn 
B. Maloney), one of the architects of the Equal Rights Amendment.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding and for all of her hard work on the Equal 
Rights Amendment and standing up and fighting for women.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues of the Democratic 
Women's Caucus to emphasize the importance of passing H.R. 1423, the 
FAIR Act for women in the workplace. I applaud the work of Hank 
Johnson, who has authored this legislation and, in some cases, worked 
with constituents over 14 years who are involved in forced arbitration 
of settlements that seem never to be settled. But statistics say that, 
if they are settled, usually the woman loses.
  I might say that the Judiciary Committee is marking up this bill 
right now, as we speak. I hope it comes to the floor. We should have 
strong, bipartisan support for this injustice and pass the FAIR bill.
  Forced arbitration is a trap. Binding a victim of workplace 
misconduct to arbitration, particularly anyone subjected to harassment 
or discrimination, is just plain wrong. Forced arbitration denies 
survivors a fair shot at justice. In fact, most employees do not even 
know they have entered into such an agreement until an incident occurs.
  So not only has a person been harassed or had their rights violated 
at work, but now the employer gets to dictate how the matter is 
settled. How fair is that?
  I want to recognize a woman present in the gallery this evening who 
knows all too well the deficiencies of forced arbitration agreements.
  Karen Ward is a distinguished former partner at the New York 
accounting firm of Ernst & Young, which is refusing to let her take her 
sexual harassment case to a public courtroom because of a forced 
arbitration contract clause.
  Not only is this unfair, it is expensive, as Ms. Ward has told us she 
has already spent $185,000 to arbitrate her claims because of a 
provision in her contract that requires her to split the cost of the 
dispute resolution.
  Ernst & Young and other firms with similar employment contract terms 
claim that forced arbitration is more efficient and streamlined. They 
don't tell you that the process is hidden from the public, that people 
can't see it. It is not transparent. And they don't tell you how 
secrecy surrounding arbitration settlements only helps perpetuate the 
problem of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. And it is 
costly emotionally and financially, as her case illustrates, with the 
$185,000 cost so far.
  Ms. Ward has said that she has heard from dozens of women bound by 
arbitration agreements. She said: ``They see that the cost can caution 
financial ruin and they choose to live with injustice.''
  In other words, the system is built like a wall against the rights of 
women, costing them out of the process, making it totally unfair to 
them.
  Underreporting and secretive settlements have roles in creating and 
cementing a culture of harassment in the workplace.
  Passing the FAIR Act is an important step toward empowering all 
employees to report workplace misconduct and retain the option of 
seeking the remedy that they so choose; and it creates an incentive for 
every employer to focus on preventing these incidents before they 
occur, not to try to conceal them, case by case, knowing that it will 
never reach the light of day and that the employees will never win. 
There is no incentive to even bring a case for justice.
  So Ms. Ward's fight has shone a light on this disturbing and unfair 
corporate behavior, and I am proud to fight alongside her and with my 
like-minded colleagues in the Women's Caucus and in Congress to change 
this and to support and pass the FAIR Act.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this 
issue and so many others.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), my good friend and colleague 
who also has spent a great deal of time working on this issue of forced 
arbitration as it relates to sexual harassment.
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise also today in support of the FAIR 
Act and to bring an end to the secret arbitration process that silences 
victims of harassment and discrimination. This is a fight that we have 
been waging for years now. It is about doing the right thing and giving 
a voice to women like Jasmine Edwards.
  Jasmine is an African American woman who was a comanager of a Guess 
retail store. When she began there, she came to the store with 15 years 
of retail experience and was promised that she would be promoted to 
manager shortly, but then the harassment started.
  Her boss instructed the women at the store to ``dress sexier.'' He 
regularly made racist and sexist comments about employees and about 
customers. He would stare at female customers and then share his 
observations with Jasmine. He would continuously make offensive remarks 
about African Americans and would claim they would be more likely to 
steal from the store, and he even segregated employees by shift. His 
behavior was so concerning that even the customers noticed this and 
began complaining about him.
  Jasmine voiced her concerns about her manager's behavior, but rather 
than taking her seriously, she was retaliated against and she was 
accused of theft. There was no investigation of those claims against 
her. She was bullied. Eventually the stress was too much to handle, and 
so Jasmine had to resign.
  But she wasn't done fighting. She found an attorney and she filed a 
complaint in court. But this clothing company--again, Guess retailer--
now says the case must be sent to arbitration. Why? Because on one of 
her first days at the retailer, the company says that Jasmine agreed to 
arbitrate any disputes.
  Of course, the arbitration agreement requires her to stay silent 
about what happened; and, under the arbitration agreement, it is the 
company-funded arbitrator who gets to decide what type of evidence 
there would be.
  I would ask anybody here: What kind of justice is that?
  It will be no surprise to you that Jasmine would rather have an 
impartial judge hear her case. Wouldn't we all? But that is not 
something she will likely be allowed to get.
  That is why we need to pass the FAIR Act now, because we have had 
enough. No more looking the other way when powerful men use their 
position of authority to victimize women. No more excuses for abusers 
just because of their status, their position, or their gender. No more 
telling women to stay silent or to get over it.
  No more.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee), my good friend and colleague from the East Bay and a great 
advocate for equal rights.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank 
Congresswoman Speier for calling us together to speak on behalf of 
these courageous women and for her tireless work on their behalf, but 
also on behalf of women throughout the world.
  Today, I join my colleagues in standing in support of the FAIR Act 
and in solidarity with women like Saturnina Plasencia, a Latina single 
mother of four who was working for $13 an hour in a Dollar store in New 
York.
  Now, her general manager subjected her to frequent sexual harassment, 
and after she refused his sexual demands, she alleged she was given 
fewer hours than new female hires. When she told him she was pregnant, 
he angrily responded: ``The baby could have been mine.''

[[Page H7590]]

  Sadly, Saturnina did not realize when she started work that she had 
signed a mandatory arbitration agreement, and her case is now in 
arbitration.
  Her attorney noted that New York passed a law that would have allowed 
Saturnina to take her case to court, but the law was struck down based 
on the Federal Arbitration Act. So Saturnina is forced to arbitrate her 
claims.
  Her case is supported by the TIME'S UP Legal Defense Fund, which is 
housed and administered by the National Women's Law Center Fund.
  Forced arbitration is just what it says; it is forced. So let's pass 
the FAIR Act so women will finally have the justice that they so 
deserve.
  Enough is enough.
  I thank Congresswoman Speier for allowing us to give voice to these 
injustices, and hopefully, soon, these women, because of the 
gentlewoman, because of the FAIR Act, will be able to move forward with 
their lives.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
again for her outstanding leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hill), 
one of our new colleagues, but not new to fighting on behalf of women.
  Ms. HILL of California. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity 
to speak on such an important issue.
  I am here today to support the FAIR Act because of women like Kelli 
Stein, who, earlier this year, wrote a public letter to the Senate 
Finance Committee telling the story of her mother, June Lee.
  In the letter, Kelli details how June was severely abused in a 
nursing home. The letter describes how her mother was dropped several 
times by staff members and sustained a broken shoulder. It took 5 days 
before the injury was x-rayed.
  Because staff failed to check on her enough, June developed bed 
sores. She suffered countless urinary tract infections because the 
nursing home staff would not take her to the bathroom enough.
  Nursing home staff even taped the nurse call cord, the cord that she 
needed to call for help, out of her reach so that they would not have 
to attend to her.
  Kelli recounts how ``throughout the entire time her mother was there, 
it was a never-ending ordeal of preventable health problem after 
preventable health problem, chipping away at her dignity as well as her 
mental and physical health.''
  Ultimately, the physical neglect caused her mental and physical 
health to suffer, and it greatly diminished her quality of life.
  But when June's family tried to hold the nursing home accountable, 
they realized that they had unknowingly signed away their rights to 
hold that nursing home corporation accountable for June's abuse and 
neglect. They had been forced to sign an arbitration agreement as a 
condition of June being admitted to the nursing home.
  The FAIR Act would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in 
employment, consumer, and civil rights cases and would allow consumers 
and workers to agree to arbitration only after a dispute occurs.
  This legislation protects older Americans who rely on the care of 
nursing home staff by allowing families to hold nursing homes 
accountable for the abuse or neglect of their loved ones.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Frankel), the co-chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus.
  Ms. FRANKEL. Madam Speaker, it is great to be with the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier). I thought maybe we could have some sort 
of a colloquy. The gentlewoman looks like she is up to it.
  Ms. SPEIER. Of course I am up to it.
  Ms. FRANKEL. First all, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership.
  And I also know that Representative Hank Johnson has also been 
involved with the FAIR Act.
  First, I want to just make a statement.
  Forced arbitration deprives men and women--not just the women, but 
men--of fundamental legal protections and also prevents--this is 
important--the public from knowing about the harm that corporations 
often create or the secrecy of arbitration.

                              {time}  1615

  So I am very pleased to join you in supporting the Forced Arbitration 
Injustice Repeal Act, or FAIR Act. So, you know, I want to talk to you 
about a woman named Lilly, but I want to read this to you. This is an 
advertisement from a massage spa that Lilly went to. And this is what 
it says, ``The world is out to get you. Thankfully, we got you. Stress 
can take a toll on your body, and even though your body works hard to 
keep it up, it needs help. Keeping your body running efficiently should 
be high on your to-do list, and regular massage is a key to operating 
at peak efficiency. Keeping your body in optimal working condition with 
routine massage along with rapid tension relief and total body stretch 
is easy at any Massage Envy franchise location.''
  Now, I would assume you would agree it is pretty appealing.
  Ms. SPEIER. Actually, no, I don't. It sounds like someone talking 
about repairing one's car, but, you know . . .
  Ms. FRANKEL. Anyway, this is the advertisement. We got your back. And 
the fact of the matter is, as I said, The world is out to get you. 
Thankfully, we got you. And they did get Lilly, who I am here to talk 
about today, because on her visit to the Massage Envy Spa she was 
sexually assaulted.
  First, she tried to get--it is one of these things where you sign up 
and get a series. So, first, she tried to get out, and she had to get 
the app, and she tried to cancel her membership, which she wasn't even 
allowed to do because in the little fine line it said, you have to go 
to arbitration.
  Ms. SPEIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FRANKEL. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. So this is a consumer who went to get a package of three 
massages at Massage Envy?
  Ms. FRANKEL. Right.
  Ms. SPEIER. She signed up for it and then decided she didn't want to 
do it and didn't read the fine print that said she had to go to 
arbitration?
  Ms. FRANKEL. Right. And she didn't want to go back because she was 
sexually assaulted. And so, we are not talking about, obviously, she 
can make a criminal claim, but she wanted to actually get out of having 
to continue to pay Massage Envy.
  She is just an example of, literally, the many women this has 
happened to. There was an investigation. There are about 1,200 of these 
franchises across the country, and BuzzFeed did an investigation, and 
they found that there were about more than 180 women who had been 
sexually assaulted at these spas.
  Now think about this, aside from the criminal consequences, which 
obviously there must be, the company does not want to let you out of 
your contract unless they force you to arbitration.
  Maybe you can explain again why forced arbitration is really so 
contrary to our system of justice?
  Ms. SPEIER. Well, because there is no justice. Oftentimes, as we have 
pointed out, these arbitration claims end up benefiting the company as 
opposed to the individual. So few of them actually result in claims 
being paid out to the consumer or the employee who was impacted by it.
  So, once again, it is a, you know, buyer beware, employee beware, 
because it is set up, not for fairness, but to protect the employer or 
the retailer in the case that you pointed out.
  Ms. FRANKEL. Is it true that in many of these arbitration cases that 
the company actually gets to choose the arbitrator and then the 
arbitrator--it is the same arbitrator, and then what are the 
implications of that?
  Ms. SPEIER. Well, again, the lack of fairness, because that 
particular arbitrator is chosen each time. That arbitrator is probably 
chosen because he or she finds in favor of the company, and the result 
is that fairness is thrown out the window.
  Ms. FRANKEL. And, obviously, the arbitrator wants to be rehired. And 
so the power is with the employer. And I think it is important to know, 
and I think we can help.
  We have been talking today about instances of sexual abuse and sexual 
harassment, but what people should know is that these arbitration 
agreements

[[Page H7591]]

touch almost every part of our life. For example, when you go into a 
doctor's office or a hospital.
  Ms. SPEIER. A doctor's office. I am about to tell a story about a 
nursing home. Here is a patient in a nursing home who gets violated, 
and then there is this arbitration clause that prevents any kind of 
relief for that particular person who was a client at the nursing home. 
So it really does impact virtually every aspect or every contract you 
sign. Every app that you sign up for probably has an arbitration 
clause.
  Ms. FRANKEL. So what this means in practical terms, we always think 
if we are harmed or we are wronged that we should have our day in court 
where a judge or a jury can hear evidence publicly and decide the case. 
But really what we have now is this system, I call it the system of 
injustice with this forced arbitration that is secret that is really 
weighted towards the corporation.
  Ms. SPEIER. That is correct. Without being harsh here, it is rigged. 
You are not necessarily, in all likelihood, going to get a fair 
hearing. You are not going to have someone who is independent. 
Oftentimes they are employed by, selected by the corporation, and the 
result is, as you pointed out, that they want to be rehired again, so 
they find reasons to be supportive of the corporation and not the 
individual.
  Ms. FRANKEL. And, again, just to emphasize this, maybe you can give 
some examples of how this results in a coverup of wrongdoing that 
really keeps other people, whether they are employees or consumers, 
from being protected?
  Ms. SPEIER. That is absolutely correct. And it is really important 
for us to make the public aware that whether you know it or not you are 
probably signing these arbitration clauses every time you sign up for a 
particular program, a particular service, or you are being employed by 
a specific company.

  Ms. FRANKEL. And one more point, if you can emphasize again, when you 
go into arbitration, does it cost the consumer or the employee money?
  Ms. SPEIER. Oftentimes it does. In one of the cases that our 
colleague from New York reflected on, it was costing her hundreds of 
thousands of dollars.
  In this case I am going to speak about, the patient, the client at 
the nursing home had to pay money, some $3,000 for the rental of the 
room in which the arbitration took place. So it is like a double slap 
in the face.
  Ms. FRANKEL. So before I let you go on with your next story, can you 
just reemphasize again exactly what this legislation will do?
  Ms. SPEIER. This legislation, and again, they are marking it up right 
now in the Judiciary Committee, is going to return to the consumer, 
return to the employee, the opportunity to not sign a forced 
arbitration agreement when they are at the most vulnerable position, 
typically when they are being hired or when they are requesting a 
service and, frankly, not knowing that the arbitration clause is there.
  Ms. FRANKEL. Well, I think you will bring a lot of justice to people 
all over the country, and I want to thank you for your leadership.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida. I am going to end, 
Madam Speaker, with two cases because they are both egregious in their 
own right.
  One is about Irene Morissette, an 87-year-old Catholic nun. Now think 
about this for a minute. An 87-year-old Catholic nun was raped in her 
nursing home near Birmingham, Alabama. Police and medical records 
revealed a brutal attack. ``Police investigators found two semen stains 
in Morissette's bed and blood on the `inside rear area' of her green-
and-pink-flowered pajama bottoms, which had been shoved underneath the 
mattress.'' Equally alarming was the article recalls how the medical 
examiner later wrote that Ms. Morissette was afraid to call anyone 
because she was afraid the assailant would be the one to come back to 
her room.
  Ms. Morissette told police in an interview several days after the 
attack that she felt like ``a piece of trash'' because she had honored 
her vow of chastity for over 6 decades and had lost something she had 
valued for her entire life. That one really breaks my heart.
  Due to a forced arbitration clause in the admissions contract she 
signed when she was admitted, Ms. Morissette was left with no choice. 
Her family could not pursue their claim in a public court of law, but 
was, rather, forced into arbitration. In the forced arbitration 
proceedings, the arbitrator invented outlandish arguments of hearsay 
and conjecture, including claims that Ms. Morissette did not appear 
``upset enough'' about the rape for it to be believable. Mind you, 
there is evidence, there is DNA evidence.
  Ms. Morissette lost, and as a final insult received a bill for $3,000 
to cover the cost of the room rental for the forced arbitration 
proceedings.
  No nursing home resident or family should ever have to go through 
what Ms. Morissette endured. That is why we are calling this particular 
piece of legislation the FAIR Act and urging a vote on the House floor.
  One last story that I would like to tell is of Rosette Pambakian. Ms. 
Pambakian was a senior executive at the dating app Tinder. She was one 
of the earliest hires and the longest standing female executive at 
Tinder, writing their very first press release. She was the head of 
marketing and communications, ran a department of more than 40 
employees, and served as the face of the brand on panels and in the 
press.
  Ms. Pambakian had sued her former employer for sexual harassment and 
assault. Now Tinder is one of those dating apps. According to her 
lawsuit, former Match Group and Tinder CEO Gregory Blatt assaulted Ms. 
Pambakian in 2016 at a Tinder holiday party. Blatt made a lewd overture 
to her saying that he got a hard-on ``every time I look at you,'' and 
``let's get out of here.'' Pambakian left the party and went to a 
colleague's hotel room with another coworker.
  Later in the night Blatt showed up. According to the lawsuit, he 
began forcibly groping her breasts and upper thighs and kissing her 
shoulders, neck, and chest without her consent in front of other 
subordinates.
  A meaningful investigation of the assault, which was required under 
company policies and California law, never happened. Pambakian alleges 
she was never even interviewed. Instead, she claims she was 
marginalized, subjected to additional harassing and offensive behavior, 
put on administrative leave, particularly accused of consenting to 
advances, calling it ``consensual cuddling,'' and finally, wrongfully 
terminated.
  The lawsuit further alleges IAC and Match tried to buy Ms. 
Pambakian's silence following the assault by offering her a higher 
salary and more stock options on the condition that she sign a 
nondisclosure agreement. She declined.
  According to her attorney, Rosette is bringing this action not only 
to right the personal wrong against her, but to stand with the many 
women in the tech industry and beyond who have been ``blamed and shamed 
into submission or silence.''
  Match and Blatt have filed a motion to have the case sent to 
arbitration, even though Ms. Pambakian was forced to sign an 
arbitration agreement after the assault and after she rejected the 
proposed NDA. Her pursuit of justice is ongoing.
  I now yield to Congresswoman Schakowsky, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois, who will also be telling a story.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague 
setting up this Special Order to talk about something that is so 
incredibly important and often not really brought to the surface.
  I am here today to join my colleagues in support for the FAIR Act, 
because I don't believe that victims of racial discrimination should be 
forced into a secretive process in which they have no access to justice 
and accountability.
  This is especially important to me because of the story of two 
Floridians, Glenda and Peter Perez. Both worked for Cigna until forced 
arbitration absolutely ruined their lives.

                              {time}  1630

  As reported by Business Insider, everything was going well and, 
``They were living in a newly built home in Ruskin, Florida, happily 
raising their three kids.'' That is what they say about themselves. But 
due to forced arbitration, things turned for the worse.

[[Page H7592]]

  Two years ago, Glenda, who is Latinx, was fired after reporting 
racial discrimination. Unknown to her, buried in the fine print of the 
employment agreement she signed along with other onboarding documents 
when she was first hired was a forced arbitration clause, so Glenda had 
no choice but to go into forced arbitration proceedings.
  But as the article notes, ``Instead of the simple and fair process 
that arbitration promises to be, Perez saw her claim dismissed without 
so much as a hearing, only to learn later that her apparently 
independent arbitrator was so friendly with the attorney representing 
Cigna that the arbitrator invited him to his 50th birthday party.''
  To no surprise, the arbitrator sided with Glenda's employer, Cigna.
  When her husband, Peter, complained about the unfairness of the 
process and how the arbitrator truly was not independent, guess what? 
He too was fired.
  Now Glenda and Peter are struggling to support themselves and their 
three children and trying to fight their wrongful termination in court.
  No worker should ever have to go through what Glenda and Peter have 
endured. This is why I support ending forced arbitration by voting for 
the FAIR Act.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues who care about justice, 
who care about fairness, to support the FAIR Act.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) for her comments on this Special Order. As she said at the 
end, she is one of the loudest voices to make sure there is justice in 
this country.
  Madam Speaker, we could tell many more stories tonight, but I am 
going to close now by thanking all of my colleagues from the Democratic 
Women's Caucus for sharing the stories of women and men who are hurt by 
forced arbitration and demonstrating the human impact of this corrupt 
and abusive practice.
  We are eager to have the House of Representatives take a vote on the 
FAIR Act on the House floor because survivors deserve their day in 
court and workers deserve dignified and respectful workplaces.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to avoid 
referencing occupants of the gallery.

                          ____________________