Understanding Ada Law: Arbitration And Compliance

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a US law that protects people with disabilities from discrimination in many areas of public life, including employment. The ADA encourages the use of alternative means of dispute resolution, including arbitration, to resolve disputes arising under the Act. However, it is not entirely clear whether ADA claims can be subject to arbitration.

In the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc., the Supreme Court held that an agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as back pay, reinstatement, and damages, in an ADA enforcement action.

In another case, Whit v. Prosper Funding LLC, the court held that the agreement was phrased broadly enough to include ADA claims. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 12212 specifically mentions that the use of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration, is encouraged to resolve disputes arising under the ADA.

Therefore, while the ADA encourages arbitration, it is not always clear if and when it applies, and the matter is further complicated by the involvement of the EEOC, which has independent statutory authority to bring ADA claims to court.

Can ADA claims be subject to arbitration?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities from discrimination. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees and encourages the use of alternative means to resolve disputes, including arbitration.

In the case of Whit v. Prosper Funding LLC, the plaintiff, who is deaf, applied for a loan through the defendant's website. The plaintiff called the defendant using a video relay service, but the defendant informed the plaintiff that its policy was not to accept calls using this service. The plaintiff then brought a suit alleging that the defendant's conduct violated the ADA. Prior to submitting the application, the plaintiff had to consent to the terms of the agreement, which included a provision to resolve any claim through arbitration.

The court held that the agreement was broad enough to include ADA claims. They also mentioned that 42 U.S.C. § 12212 specifically mentions that the use of ADR, including arbitration, is encouraged to resolve disputes arising under the ADA.

In another case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States held that an agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as back pay, reinstatement, and damages, in an ADA enforcement action.

Therefore, it can be concluded that ADA claims can be subject to arbitration, as encouraged by 42 U.S.C. § 12212, but this does not bar the EEOC from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief.

Can arbitration agreements be held unconscionable?

Arbitration agreements can be held unconscionable if they are deemed to be one-sided and unfair to the extent that no reasonable or informed person would agree to them. In the US, courts have the authority to refuse to enforce such contracts.

In the state of California, for an arbitration agreement to be considered unconscionable, it must be both "procedurally" and "substantively" unconscionable. Procedural unconscionability refers to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, while substantive unconscionability refers to the fairness of the contract's terms.

Procedural unconscionability can be determined by asking the following questions: Was the contract presented as a "take-it-or-leave-it" contract with no opportunity to negotiate? Was there a power imbalance between the parties? Was there "surprise," i.e. deceptive tactics or vague language used to hide the terms of the agreement? Was the contract difficult to understand or presented in fine print? Did the party have enough time to review the contract? Did they have the education and experience to understand it? Did they have legal representation?

Substantive unconscionability is determined by analyzing the terms of the arbitration agreement. Unilateral contract terms that only affect one party and not the other are a common form of substantive unconscionability. For example, an employer may mandate arbitration for claims commonly brought by employees (e.g. discrimination, retaliation) while permitting lawsuits for claims commonly brought by employers (e.g. protection of intellectual property). Courts may also find it unconscionable if the arbitration agreement limits the amount of evidence-gathering, hearing time, or the number of witnesses that can be called.

Additionally, an arbitration agreement may be considered unconscionable if it unduly burdens a party with fees, limits the types of claims or remedies that a party can assert, or unreasonably shortens the statute of limitations for bringing a claim.

If an arbitration agreement is found to be unconscionable, a court may either invalidate the entire agreement or "sever" the specific provisions that are deemed unconscionable, enforcing the rest of the agreement.

Can arbitration agreements contain clauses that prevent challenging an award?

Arbitration agreements can contain clauses that prevent challenging an award, but they may not be enforceable. In the US, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) intends to provide a minimum level of due process for parties to an arbitration. Therefore, permitting parties to contractually eliminate judicial review of awards contradicts the text of the FAA, frustrates its intent, and leaves the party without any safeguards against abuse by the arbitrator.

In the UK, the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law facilitate the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards by subjecting enforcement to a limited number of conditions. The grounds for refusal to enforce an award are restricted to a narrow list of defects affecting the arbitral procedure or the award. These defects must be of a serious nature and include irregularities such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of due process, or violation of public policy of the enforcement state.

In India, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the Arbitration Act) provides that an arbitral award may be set aside by the court if the arbitral records can establish specific conditions, such as incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the award may be set aside if the court finds that the subject matter of the dispute cannot be settled by arbitration or that the award conflicts with the public policy of India.

While it is possible to include clauses in arbitration agreements that prevent challenging an award, the enforceability of such clauses is subject to the laws and judicial interpretations of the relevant jurisdiction.

Does granting a motion to compel arbitration lead to a dismissal or stay of proceedings?

The answer to this question is dependent on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.

In the US, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is the legislation that governs arbitration agreements. The FAA enables an aggrieved party to seek an order directing that arbitration proceeds according to the agreement.

When a lawsuit is filed, a party (often the defendant) can file a motion to compel arbitration. This motion can be the first step in dismissing a case, particularly if the arbitration agreement stipulates that the place of arbitration is outside the jurisdiction of the court hearing the pending suit. In this case, a motion to dismiss for improper venue would be the correct approach, rather than a motion to stay or compel arbitration.

However, the FAA also outlines that once a court has determined that a claim is subject to arbitration, it "shall on the application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had". The use of "shall" and "stay" indicates that dismissal is not an option in this instance, and the court must stay the case.

The US Supreme Court has recently clarified this issue, ruling that district courts must stay cases when the underlying claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. This ruling resolved a circuit split, with a majority of circuits holding that a stay is mandated by the FAA, while others ruled that a district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case when all issues are to be arbitrated.

Therefore, in the US, if a motion to compel arbitration is granted, it is likely that the court will stay the proceedings rather than dismiss them. However, there may be instances where dismissal is appropriate, particularly if the arbitration is to take place outside of the court's jurisdiction.

Does the ADA apply to small public employers?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits covered employers from discriminating against people with disabilities in all aspects of living and working in America. While the ADA applies to all businesses with 15 or more employees, businesses with fewer than 15 employees are not covered by the employment provisions of the ADA.

The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with a physical or mental impairment that significantly limits one or more major life activities, such as sitting, standing, or sleeping. It covers a wide range of physical and mental conditions and protects those regarded or treated by an employer as having a substantially limiting impairment.

The ADA ensures that individuals with disabilities have equal opportunities in the job application process, equal opportunities for job promotions, equal access to benefits and privileges of employment, and protection from harassment due to their disability. Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship or pose a direct threat.

Small businesses can benefit from various resources and funding options to aid in providing accommodations, such as state programs or tax deductions. While the ADA encourages equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities, it does not force employers to hire unqualified individuals or give them preferential treatment.

Frequently asked questions