Surprising (to me) language on a job application

[Orrex]

(I posted this in the Career Advice group but thought that this Forum might provide valuable insight as well.)

I recently took a look at a standard employment application for a local fast food company, and I was rather taken aback by this little passage near the end of the document:

Because of the delay and expense of the court systems, Company Name and I agree to use confidential binding arbitration for any claims that arise between me and Company Name, its related companies, and/or their current or former employees. Such claims would include any concerning compensation, employment (including, but not limited to any claims concerning sexual harassment), or termination of employment. Before arbitration, I agree: (i) first, to present any such claims in full written detail to Company Name; (ii) next, to complete any Company Name internal review process; and (iii) finally, to complete any external administrative remedy (such as with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). In any arbitration, the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association (and, to the extent not inconsistent, the then prevailing rules of the Federal Arbitration Act) will apply.

I confess that I know nothing about the American Arbitration Association, so maybe I'm reacting to nothing, but this sounds to me like an attempt to circumvent legitimate legal remedy in the case of employee grievance. I take particular note of the company's explicit desire to avoid legal costs, especially since they make specific mention of cases involving claims of sexual harassment.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and insights.

on edit: I should have mentioned that I'm not actually applying to this company, but a copy of their application came into my possession, whereupon I read the suspicious passage

[david_vincent]

1. I think you're on the right track

it seems like an attempt to get job applicants to contract away their legal rights, which in itself probably wouldn't stand up in court, since no employer can estrange a citizen of his/her rights. If I were in your shoes, I'd be tempted to cross out that section and sign the application, just to see what happens.

[havocmom]

4. You make a solid agrument

Might be good to call ACLU. Maybe they have a para-legal who needs a part-time gig? :evilgrin:

[Donnachaidh]

2. They want to lock any angry employees into Arbitration

Trying to keep from being sued. Gotta agree to allow the Company tp place a foot on your *neck* before they will consider hiring you.

Did they give you the employee handbook yet -- "Your Rights as a Serf"? :sarcasm:

[Fridays Child]

3. It ought to be illegal for a company to require employees to give up their constitutional rights.

Because that's exactly what they're doing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Only certain rights

I agree that it probably ought to be illegal to require employees to give up the right to sue, but it's perfectly reasonable to demand that your employees give up e.g. their right to free speech (confidentiality clauses being an obvious example), their right to freedom of association (witness-tampering rules in legal cases, IIRC), their right to freedom religion (religious organisations employing members of their own religion), etc.

[Fridays Child]

9. The right to sue is the one I'm thinking of, here.

I think it's fine to offer arbitration as an alternative but to make it the only recourse available to employees seems like a relatively small but hugely significant step toward privatizing our system of justice. That scares me.

[Igel]

5. Keeping employee complaints out of the courts is precisely

the goal.

During my grad career--a different environment, but with the same problems--I saw people threaten lawsuits. Often the university offer to settle out of court--and behind the person's back say they were sure the person would lose in court, but the $50k or whatever they were asking was simply much cheaper than the cost of litigation. One time the plaintiff hauled various people in for depositions numerous times ... it was legal terrorism when those being deposed were in their early 20s. The school had legal staff, but still ... Once the case was settled there was always a confidentiality agreement signed, and the people that said the claimant didn't have a case simply shut up.

They only fought a few kinds of cases: Those in which they thought they could get thrown out quickly, those in which some sort of principle or precedent was at stake, and those in which the claims were far higher than the cost of litigation.

From time to time they'd settle a case they were sure they could win and which met the conditions for being fought. But they'd take such a media beating that they'd settle anyway. Or they were sure the plaintiff was wrong, but such a heartwringing case could be mounted against them that they thought they'd have a hard time convincing a jury ... they might win on appeal, but the damage is done by then.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. If a company is going to dispute a challenged termination, it's cheaper

to pay for an arbitrator than an attorney whose meter runs $400-500 and there will be a lot of hours with respect to this kind of case.

[JenniferJuniper]

7. I'm not an employment practices attorney

...but this looks BS to me. I would doubt that such a clause on a job application - of all things- would allow a potential future employer out of litigation in any of the instances listed, whether the prospective employee signed it or not. Further, AAA hardly seems a proper venue for matters such as sexual harassment.

Sounds like this company has had some problems in the past and is just trying to dissuade employees (You can't sue us - you signed a job application!) from considering a lawsuit against them

[Lobster Martini]

10. Having just gone through EEOC mediation myself...

this sounds to me like a long winded way of saying that you have to go through internal arbitration first and then external mediation (e.g. EEOC). It says you have to complete the administrative remedy. It doesn't say you have to accept their terms--for example, I had the option of rejecting the settlement at the EEOC mediation--and it doesn't seem to limit your other rights. It just seems to mean that you have to go up the ladder. Which is not necessarily bad. I got a settlement without having to hire a lawyer.

Having said that, I would like you to sign a release stating that I am in no way responsible for any agreements you sign based on these comments as I am a dumbass writer with a terrier and no legal training whatsoever.

[shenmue]

11. Well, arbitration is legal

and they've been doing things like this for a long time. So what's the problem?

[Orrex]

13. Well, as I said, it just sort of struck me

Regardless of what goes on elsewhere, it seemed to me (and to others in this thread, apparently) like an effort to do an end-run around an employee's right to bring reasonable litigation.

And, to be frank, for a job that mostly employs high school kids and pays under $7.00/hr, it struck me as a bit over-the-top.

But thanks for your input all the same.

[NV Whino]

12. have you signed up for any insurance lately?

You will find the same statement on insurance applications.

[windy252]

14. I've seen these before.

While I'm not a lawyer, that's how I read it as well. Sometimes it makes me wonder if they're doing a bunch of illegal stuff.