Nevertheless, in 2018, the Supreme Court has ruled that binding arbitration agreements in the field of labour law are applicable under the Federal Arbitration Act. It is likely that this decision was assumed that the alleged victims would still have access to the EEOC. In addition, some states have amended their laws to be more worker-friendly. For example, in California, mandatory arbitration must provide the same remedies for victims that they would have in court. It is difficult to know the practical effects of EEOC`s repeal of the Declaration of Principle. However, the effects may be limited, as they only reconcile the EEOC`s position with the existing legal precedent. It could, however, reduce the number of INVESTIGATIONs into EEOC resulting from the applicability of arbitration agreements. The EEOC had previously found that mandatory arbitration agreements undermined the application of federal anti-discrimination laws. The 1997 political declaration concluded that arbitration agreements allow employers to “break free from the application of civil rights laws by the Confederation” and “deprive civil rights activists of the choice to justify their legal rights in court.” In 1997, the EEOC stated that the requirement for workers to accept mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment could “undermine both every civil rights activist and the public interest in the elimination of discrimination.” The two Republican members of the EEOC, Chair Janet Dhillon and Victoria Lipnic, voted in favour of repealing the political declaration, given the recent precedent. Charlotte Burrows, the only Democratic commissioner, voted against the policy change. “I am disappointed that the Commission is abandoning our long-standing position, particularly in light of the Commission`s current efforts to combat forms of sexual and other harassment in employment,” she said. After the #MeToo movement, workers` lawyers criticized the use of arbitration agreements as a way to silence victims of sexual harassment and keep claims safe from the courts.
But at this point, many of them are speculative. The announcement that accompanied the withdrawal did not provide specific details on how the Agency is proceeding in light of today`s actions. Depending on how eEOC staff are informed in revised orders that may be known in the coming weeks and months, it may be of great value to employers to respond to eEOC fees and coercive measures to increase arbitration agreements as a valid defence. In the 22 years since the EEOC published this guide, the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted numerous arbitration procedures that support the use of arbitration agreements, some of which were directly involved in allegations of employment discrimination or related federal labour laws. For example, in 2001, the Court ruled that employment dispute settlement agreements between employers and workers are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. In other arbitration proceedings, the Tribunal has dismissed concerns about the use of arbitration, both in the context of and outside employment discrimination rights. These decisions are contrary to the 1997 Declaration of Principle and, therefore, the EEOC has decided to withdraw its policy because it is not in compliance with existing legislation. And despite some new reluctant trade-offs due to the #MeToo movement and the trend towards transparency in employment practices, employers have overwhelmingly opted in favour of mandatory arbitration and still apply such guidelines today. Given the current legal situation and the realities of the modern working relationship, the EEOC has now scrapped politics.
In 2002, the Supreme Court issued a ruling to that effect. He found that the EEOC was still in a position to enforce the law and lighten the burden on a victim, even though that person had signed a mandatory arbitration agreement.