I 
115TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 1374 
To amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
MARCH 7, 2017 
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. 
CLARK of Massachusetts, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Ms. JACKSON 
LEE, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 
POCAN, Mr. DELANEY, Mr. RICHMOND, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. 
NORTON, Mr. EVANS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. 
MAXINE WATERS of California, Ms. LEE, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. CUMMINGS, 
Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. COHEN, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. BEYER, 
Mr. PAYNE, Mr. SOTO, Mr. HIGGINS of New York, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. 
LOFGREN, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. FRANKEL of 
Florida, Ms. HANABUSA, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. 
HASTINGS, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. MCEACHIN, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. 
NADLER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect 
to arbitration. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Arbitration Fairness 
Act of 2017’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:56 Mar 11, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1374.IH
H1374
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
(1) The Federal Arbitration Act (now enacted 
as chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States Code) 
was intended to apply to disputes between commer-
cial entities of generally similar sophistication and 
bargaining power. 
(2) A series of decisions by the Supreme Court 
of the United States has interpreted the Act so that 
it now extends to consumer disputes and employ-
ment disputes, contrary to the intent of Congress. 
(3) Most consumers and employees have little 
or no meaningful choice whether to submit their 
claims to arbitration. Often, consumers and employ-
ees are not even aware that they have given up their 
rights. 
(4) Mandatory arbitration undermines the de-
velopment of public law because there is inadequate 
transparency and inadequate judicial review of arbi-
trators’ decisions. 
(5) Arbitration can be an acceptable alternative 
when consent to the arbitration is truly voluntary, 
and occurs after the dispute arises. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:56 Mar 11, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1374.IH
H1374
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SEC. 3. ARBITRATION OF EMPLOYMENT, CONSUMER, ANTI-
TRUST, AND CIVIL RIGHTS DISPUTES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title 9 of the United States Code 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘CHAPTER 4—ARBITRATION OF EMPLOY-
MENT, CONSUMER, ANTITRUST, AND 
CIVIL RIGHTS DISPUTES 
‘‘Sec. 
‘‘401. Definitions. 
‘‘402. Validity and enforceability. 
‘‘§ 401. Definitions 
‘‘In this chapter— 
‘‘(1) the term ‘antitrust dispute’ means a dis-
pute— 
‘‘(A) involving a claim for damages alleg-
edly caused by a violation of the antitrust laws 
(as defined in subsection (a) of the first section 
of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12)) or State 
antitrust laws; and 
‘‘(B) in which the plaintiffs seek certifi-
cation as a class under rule 23 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure or a comparable rule 
or provision of State law; 
‘‘(2) the term ‘civil rights dispute’ means a dis-
pute— 
‘‘(A) arising under— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:56 Mar 11, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1374.IH
H1374
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
‘‘(i) the Constitution of the United 
States or the constitution of a State; or 
‘‘(ii) a Federal or State statute that 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
race, sex, disability, religion, national ori-
gin, or any invidious basis in education, 
employment, credit, housing, public accom-
modations and facilities, voting, or pro-
gram funded or conducted by the Federal 
Government or State government, includ-
ing any statute enforced by the Civil 
Rights Division of the Department of Jus-
tice and any statute enumerated in section 
62(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to unlawful discrimination); 
and 
‘‘(B) in which at least 1 party alleging a 
violation of the Constitution of the United 
States, a State constitution, or a statute pro-
hibiting discrimination is an individual; 
‘‘(3) the term ‘consumer dispute’ means a dis-
pute between an individual who seeks or acquires 
real or personal property, services, securities or 
other investments, money, or credit for personal, 
family, or household purposes and the seller or pro-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:56 Mar 11, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1374.IH
H1374
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
vider of such property, services, securities or other 
investments, money, or credit; 
‘‘(4) the term ‘employment dispute’ means a 
dispute between an employer and employee arising 
out of the relationship of employer and employee as 
defined in section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203); and 
‘‘(5) the term ‘predispute arbitration agree-
ment’ means any agreement to arbitrate a dispute 
that had not yet arisen at the time of the making 
of the agreement. 
‘‘§ 402. Validity and enforceability 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this title, no predispute arbitration agreement 
shall be valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of 
an employment dispute, consumer dispute, antitrust dis-
pute, or civil rights dispute. 
‘‘(b) APPLICABILITY.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An issue as to whether this 
chapter applies to an arbitration agreement shall be 
determined under Federal law. The applicability of 
this chapter to an agreement to arbitrate and the 
validity and enforceability of an agreement to which 
this chapter applies shall be determined by a court, 
rather than an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:56 Mar 11, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1374.IH
H1374
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration 
agreement specifically or in conjunction with other 
terms of the contract containing such agreement. 
‘‘(2) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.— 
Nothing in this chapter shall apply to any arbitra-
tion provision in a contract between an employer and 
a labor organization or between labor organizations, 
except that no such arbitration provision shall have 
the effect of waiving the right of an employee to 
seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under a 
provision of the Constitution of the United States, a 
State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or 
public policy arising therefrom.’’. 
(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Title 9 of the United States 
Code is amended— 
(A) in section 1, by striking ‘‘of seamen,’’ 
and all that follows through ‘‘interstate com-
merce’’; 
(B) in section 2, by inserting ‘‘or as other-
wise provided in chapter 4’’ before the period at 
the end; 
(C) in section 208— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:56 Mar 11, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1374.IH
H1374
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS