NCJ Number
58998
Journal
LABOR LAW REVIEW Volume: 27 Issue: 5 Dated: (MAY 1976) Pages: 265-277
Date Published
1976
Length
13 pages
Annotation
A DISCUSSION OF ARBITRATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES CONCLUDES THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BEST BE SERVED BY EXCLUDING DIFFICULT EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES FROM ARBITRATION.
Abstract
THE ARTICLE STATES THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW UNDER TITLE VII (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION) IS A JOB FOR THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNTIES (EEO) COMMISSION AND THE COURTS, NOT FOR PRIVATE JURISTS. SINCE EEO IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, ITS ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED IN A PUBLIC FORUM, IN FULL VIEW OF THE PUBLIC ITSELF. RESULTS IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES MUST ALSO BE COMPLETE AND CONSISTENT. REMEDY DUE TO VICTIMS OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SHOULD BE GIVEN WITHOUT COMPROMISE. IT IS STATED THAT THE DEVICE OF COMPROMISE TRADITIONAL IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS IRRELEVANT IN TITLE VII CASES. HOWEVER, ARBITRATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES SHOULD NOT BE FORBIDDEN. ARBITRATORS SHOULD BE VIEWED, INSTEAD, AS LIMITED PARTNERS IN THE ENFORCEMENT EFFORT. FOR DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT CASES, THE BULK OF THE WORKLOAD MUST BE CARRIED BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNTIES COMMISSION AND BY THE COURTS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)