[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.
____________________