But even though Cremin believes she has a strong case, Merrill's mandatory arbitration policy means that she will never get a chance to seek compensation before a jury. I was 21, just out of business school. Merrill Lynch denies the allegations of sexual discrimination and contends that its mandatory arbitration policy is legal. Cremin is not the only one crying foul. Ever since 1991, when the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of mandatory arbitration for workplace disputes, the number of companies implementing the practice has soared.
Employers praise the procedure as an antidote to runaway litigation costs.
Employees, though, are increasingly convinced that the system is allowing companies to break laws prohibiting sexual, religious, and racial discrimination, among other things. But until recently, people such as Cremin had little chance of escaping the in-house system. That's rapidly changing. For at least a year, a broad backlash against mandatory arbitration has been gaining force. And on Mar. 2, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a case brought by a South Carolina longshoreman who is trying to break free of his employer's mandatory arbitration program to bring a disability claim.