Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · BILL · 115th Congress · H.R. 7109 (Introduced in House) — To prohibit forced arbitration in employment disputes, and for other purposes. · Sec. 2

Sec. 2. Findings

361 words·~2 min read·/bill/115/hr/7109/ih/section-2

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress finds the following: Millions of employees are currently forced to accept, as a condition of employment, contractual provisions that block their access to the courts or prohibit them from joining together with other employees to seek joint, class, or collective relief for violations of their rights. This has led to widespread nonenforcement of employees’ rights and has permitted significant violations of those rights to continue unabated. Most employees have little or no meaningful choice regarding whether to accept these provisions.
Often, employees are not even aware that they have given up the right to seek recourse in court or have waived their right to join other employees in joint, class, or collective actions. The Federal Arbitration Act (now enacted as chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code) was intended to apply to disputes between commercial entities of generally similar sophistication and bargaining power. Despite this congressional intent, the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act so that it now extends to employment disputes.
The National Labor Relations Act ( 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) protects employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection. This was intended and long understood to encompass employees’ right to collectively seek relief for violations of their workplace rights. However, contrary to the plain text of the law and congressional intent, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), decided that employees may be forced, as a condition of employment, to waive their right to collectively litigate employment actions.
Forced individual dispute resolution undermines employees’ rights and exacerbates the inequality of bargaining power between employees and employers because joining a joint, class, or collective action is often the only way employees can afford to seek relief for violations of their rights. Employees who are forced to submit to individual dispute resolution often seek no redress at all due to well-founded fear of retaliation. Protecting the rights of employees to individually or concertedly seek relief for violations of their labor rights through the justice system protects the public interest and safeguards commerce from injury.
Connectionstraces to 1
Traces to 1 document
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 2
Findings
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.