When the workers filed their appeal, the employer filed a request for arbitration. The court dismissed the motion to declare the arbitration contract “contract of adhesion” invalid (in which the worker did not have the opportunity to negotiate his terms) and also found that several of the provisions of the contract were “so one-sided that they shock the conscience” of the court. The court insisted that only workers who asserted rights against the employer should be obliged to settle their rights, and not the other way around. In addition, the court was insulted by the limitation period for damages and the lack of detection (investigation of facts) permitted by the provisions of the arbitration agreement. For several years, employers have been concerned about the costs and management problems caused by labour rights and litigation. It may seem obvious that the public justice system could decide whether an agreement that denies a worker access to the public justice system is enforceable. The Duffield Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibited the application of compulsory employment contracts to regulate rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or equivalent national anti-discrimination legislation, such as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Duffield case involved a securities dealer who was attempting to negotiate state and federal discrimination rights against their employer as a result of alleged sex discrimination and harassment. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 provides that “where appropriate and, to the extent permitted by law, the use of alternative means of dispute resolution, including. Arbitration is encouraged to resolve disputes arising out of laws or provisions of federal law as amended by this Title. Despite this language, the court found that the Law`s Congress intended to prohibit the mandatory reconciliation of workers` civil rights.
The 9th Circuit was the only federal appeled court to adopt such a strong stance against the reconciliation of labor disputes. As a result, most legal scholars have concluded that arbitration agreements relating to discrimination and related rights are not valid. . . .