The National Arbitration Forum Blog

A recently published study by Cornell professor David Sherwyn, J.D., entitled, “Mandatory Arbitration: Why Alternative Dispute Resolution May Be the Most Equitable Way to Resolve Discrimination Claims,” concludes that employment discrimination claims are resolved more quickly and with less expense through ADR.

A key point from the study that we consistently find is that arbitration benefits both employees and employers. Sherwyn stated, "[I]’ve found that arbitration seems to work better than litigation for both employees and employers. I say this partly because low-paid employees, who might have a claim for a relatively small amount of back pay, have a difficult time getting their day in court, due to the expense of litigation. On the other side, employers are forced to settle meritless cases because the cost of litigation defense is so high."

Sherwyn adds, “Not only is arbitration less expensive for both parties, it is much faster than going to court." One of Sherwyn’s case studies involved a large employer with an ADR program. It revealed that the number of days to resolution for a discrimination claim was “tiny” – less than two weeks – compared to the average 373 days for claims that went through the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Corporation.

In addition, the findings further discredit the myth that mandatory arbitration programs disproportionately favor employers in discrimination claims. None of the researchers or studies featured in Sherwyn’s report found any evidence supporting the idea that arbitration favors employers.