Opinion ID: 2083424
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Social considerations

Text: The majority suggests that state action may be found because of society's interest in the workers' compensation system. To the extent that the workers' compensation system is the product of social legislation, it should be enough to say that, under separation of powers, the social aspects of that system are best addressed by the legislature, not by the court, and the legislature did address those social aspects when it enacted section 176.1812. The court should not substitute its view of the social utility of the use of private ADR systems for workers' compensation claims for the view already expressed by the legislature when it authorized those systems in section 176.1812. Moreover, in a case relied upon by the majority, the United States Supreme Court determined that there was no conflict between the use of arbitration and the social policies that underlie a statutory claim: As [appellant] contends, the [Age Discrimination in Employment Act] is designed not only to address individual grievances, but also to further important social policies. We do not perceive any inherent inconsistency between those policies, however, and enforcing agreements to arbitrate age discrimination claims. It is true that arbitration focuses on specific disputes between the parties involved. The same can be said, however, of judicial resolution of claims. Both of these dispute resolution mechanisms nevertheless also can further broader social purposes. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 27, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (internal citations omitted).