More Options for Victims of Discrimination in the Pipeline

Washington, DCEmployment discrimination happens in every sector. No one is immune. In fact, workplace discrimination is, sad to say, fairly common. Racial discrimination may not be as pronounced as it might have been at one time, but the combined basket of discrimination paradigms will continue to overflow, so long as there are employers who prefer to ignore the law and basic moral judgment, and do what they want—playing God in the process.

Sometimes it's appearance, such as when the middle-aged pole-dancer was fired from her job in a nightclub because the owner wanted somebody younger and, it is assumed, a more compelling attraction for the male patrons. She sued and won her case—even though she didn't return to that particular job. She moved on to another nightclub that accepted a few wrinkles. She still has the moves.

We've all heard the stories of the TV stations that turf a perfectly performing anchorwoman, because the focus groups tell them there would be a bigger audience if a younger, prettier talking head were present. Apparently, credibility means little in the eye of the TV camera these days.

And then there is the federal age discrimination class action that has been filed by more than 30 San Francisco police officers against the San Francisco Investigations Bureau. The allegation is that younger colleagues have been consistently promoted into more senior positions, while more senior staff—such as they—get passed over.

True, workplace discrimination may never go away. However, there could be a change in the works, thanks in part to the victory of President-elect Obama and Democratic control in Washington that could see the restoration of litigation as an option for workers currently mandated to settle disputes through arbitration.

Arbitration grew out of a 1991 US Supreme Court ruling that basically took the capacity for litigation away from workers, forcing them instead to participate in arbitration with their employer to settle disputes. Arbitration, according to critics, favors the employer and severely limits the options an employee has.

But the day for the disgruntled and disenfranchised employee may be brightening. A Bill sponsored by the Democrats last year was stalled somewhat by the possibility of a Presidential veto by the Bush Administration. However, the measure could see new life in the New Year and, if passed, would prevent employers from imposing arbitration on their employees.

"The bottom line is you shouldn't be forced into arbitration," says Michael LeRoy, a labor law expert from the University of Illinois. "It doesn't seem like a hallmark of a democratic society to say that as a condition of an important economic relationship such as employment that you must forego a constitutional right."

Cases can encompass everything from sexual harassment in the workplace, to unjust dismissal, to customers who have a problem with their credit card bills.

According to the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act, arbitration would become a voluntary option, rather than a mandated mechanism to settle disputes.

In the end, it gives the wronged employee, or consumer, more choice with regard to employment discrimination or even racial discrimination. Arbitration could be an option you can follow. However, if it doesn't meet the needs of your particular workplace discrimination case, then you would have the right to take that case to a higher authority

And that's a good thing.