Arbitration quicker, less costly alternative for employers
Q&A with Charlie Plumbpublished in The Oklahoman | March 28, 2013
McAfee & Taft labor and employment attorney Charlie Plumb was featured in a Q&A with The Oklahoman to provide insight as to why more and more employers are considering implementing mandatory and binding arbitration program as an alternative method of resolving employment-related disputes. Without such a program in place, employers must defend themselves in court, a process which can be costly in terms of time, money and risk.
“It’s an unfortunate business reality that many companies reluctantly settle lawsuits – even when they know the claim against them is weak – just to avoid the expense and uncertainty of a jury trial,” said Plumb. “For many employers, arbitration provides a quicker, less expensive and fairer method of resolving employment disputes.”
Plumb noted a trend in which a number of federal district and appellate courts have upheld the enforceability of arbitration agreements. In one such case, Morrison v. Volkswagen Tulsa, a federal court in Oklahoma blocked an employee’s attempt to file a employment lawsuit against her employer, ruling that she must submit all her claims to mandatory and binding arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement she signed at the time of her employment with the car dealership.
In the article, Plumb also provided Oklahoma employers with best practices for implementing a well-crafted, enforceable arbitration agreement.
You can read the entire article here.