Justices to decide if workers can be made to forfeit right to sue By BART JANSEN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ A California man's lawsuit alleging on-the-job harassment could set ground rules for when employers can force workers to settle labor disputes through arbitration rather than in court.
The Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in the case of Saint Clair Adams, who was made to sign a document agreeing to settle any potential labor grievance through binding arbitration before Circuit City Stores Inc. would hire him. The court is reviewing what types of job classifications may fall under such an agreement.
Business groups say arbitration is more convenient, less time-consuming and cheaper than lawsuits to settle grievances.
``Businesses look at the costs (of lawsuits) as just crushing,'' said Lawrence Lorber, the lawyer who wrote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's argument in the case. ``If Circuit City loses, that would be a major, major development. The question is how they will win, and what type of rules the Supreme Court will set down.''
Critics say workers forfeit certain rights when they go before a private arbitrator rather than a judge. Appeals often are limited, damages are capped, and severe restrictions are placed on discovery, the process by which a worker's lawyer may gather information to buttress the case.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a policy recommendation in 1997 against mandatory arbitration.
``In our view, these agreements are fundamentally in disagreement with the civil rights laws,'' said Ellen Vargyas, general counsel for the EEOC. ``What we're basically talking about is private justice systems as opposed to public justice systems.''
Several civil rights groups, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund, have sided with Adams.
Before hiring Adams in November 1995, Circuit City required him to sign a document agreeing to arbitration. A year later he quit, then filed a lawsuit that alleged co-workers at a Santa Rosa, Calif., store harassed him because he is gay, and the company did nothing when he complained.
Circuit City asked a federal judge to throw out the case, citing Adams' agreement to arbitration. The judge sided with the company, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision.
The appeals court ruled the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act specifically excluded ``seamen, railroad employees or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,'' which the court said includes Adams.
How the Supreme Court rules on the case could have sweeping implications for businesses, more of which are using arbitration to settle disputes with workers. Almost one-fifth of the national work force is covered by arbitration agreements, according to the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
``It's important to many businesses because they're being eaten alive by lawyers' fees and excess litigation,'' said Randy Johnson, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's vice president for labor.
Business advocates say employers are no more likely to win an arbitration hearing than a court case, but critics say arbitration agreements can be written to favor employers.
``What's going on is do-it-yourself tort reform,'' said Cliff Paleksky, one of Adams' lawyers. ``The case involves the integrity of the civil rights laws and every statute that's been passed to regulate the workplace.''
The case is Circuit City Stores vs. Adams. 99-1379.
On the Net: The appeals ruling is at http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html Click on 9th Circuit.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: http://www.eeoc.gov/