Measuring the Value of Class and Collective Action Employment Settlements: A Preliminary Assessment
Files
Description
There has been a recent debate in the literature on the relative merits of arbitration, individual litigation, and class action litigation in providing adequate remedies for disputes arising out of the employment relationship. For the last decade and a half, the debate centered on whether arbitration provided a fair forum for plaintiffs, despite the relative informality of the process, the employer's ability to tailor procedures, and the claimed propensity of arbitrators to curry the favor of repeat-player employers. The empirical literature has not borne out these criticisms. Almost without exception, the studies find that employment arbitration is quicker, less costly, and results in a win-loss rate that is no different than in litigation, with median awards somewhat lower (perhaps due to the fact that low-value claims are able to proceed to hearing in the more informal process of arbitration).
Source Publication
Employment Class and Collective Actions: Proceedings of the New York University 56th Annual Conference on Labor
Source Editors/Authors
David Sherwyn
Publication Date
2009
Recommended Citation
Estreicher, Samuel and Yost, Kristina, "Measuring the Value of Class and Collective Action Employment Settlements: A Preliminary Assessment" (2009). Faculty Chapters. 464.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-chapt/464
