Duffield

Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co.

Bad Law
144 F.3d 1182·98 Daily Journal DAR 4837·1998 WL 227469·73 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,397·76 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1450
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 8, 199897-15698California12,149 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

This case presents the issue whether employers may require as a mandatory condition of employment in a certain profession— here, broker-dealer in the securities industry—that all employees waive their right to bring Title VII and other statutory and non-statutory claims in court and instead agree in advance to submit all employment-related disputes' to binding arbitration. We hold that, under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, employers may not by such means compel individuals to waive their Title VII right to a judicial forum. At the same time, we hold that because no state action is involved there is no constitutional bar to employers requiring employees to agree in advance to arbitrate statedaw tórt and contract claims (other than for violation of a state civil rights law).

I

■ Like every individual who wishes to work in the United States as a broker-dealer in the securities industry, Tonyja Duffield was required, as a condition of employment mandated by the national securities exchanges, to waive her right to a judicial forum to resolve all “employment related” disputes and to agree instead to arbitrate any such disputes under the exchanges’ rules. Prospective employees must…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.