Cole v. Burns: Arbitration Agreement Enforceability Explained
This paper examines the D.C. Circuit Court's 1997 decision in Cole v. Burns International Security Services (105 F.3d 1465), addressing four core legal questions arising from a mandatory employment arbitration agreement. Drawing on the precedent established in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., the paper analyzes how the court determined the agreement's enforceability, resolved the question of arbitrator fee allocation, and addressed the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards. It also evaluates practical steps employees and employers can take in future cases and considers whether mandatory arbitration agreements represent sound organizational policy.
- Introduction and Case Background: Overview of the Cole v. Burns dispute
- Applying Gilmer to Determine Enforceability: How Gilmer precedent validated the arbitration agreement
- Resolving the Question of Arbitrator Expenses: Court rules employer must pay all arbitrator fees
- Scope of Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards: Supreme Court oversight ensures statutory compliance
- Strategies for Changing Future Legal Outcomes: Steps employees and lawyers can take going forward
- Is Mandatory Arbitration a Wise Organizational Policy?: Employer benefits of mandatory arbitration agreements
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper is organized around discrete legal questions, making it easy to follow the court's reasoning step by step without conflating separate issues.
- Direct quotations from the court's opinion are used to anchor each analytical point, grounding the student's interpretation in primary source material.
- The final two sections shift from legal analysis to practical and policy evaluation, demonstrating the student's ability to move beyond case summary into applied reasoning.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of legal precedent analysis. By first establishing what Gilmer required and then testing whether the Cole–Burns agreement satisfied those requirements, the student models the same inferential logic courts use — a valuable technique for any legal studies or business law course.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a question-and-answer format corresponding to five distinct issues: (1) enforceability under Gilmer, (2) allocation of arbitrator expenses, (3) judicial review scope, (4) strategies for future plaintiffs, and (5) organizational policy wisdom. Each section is self-contained, making the paper function both as a continuous argument and as a reference for individual legal questions arising from the case.
Introduction and Case Background
The case of Clinton Cole v. Burns International Security Services, 105 F.3d 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1997), raises fundamental questions about the enforceability of mandatory employment arbitration agreements, the allocation of arbitration costs, and the scope of judicial review over arbitration awards. The following analysis addresses each of these questions in turn, drawing on the court's reasoning and the precedent established in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
Applying Gilmer to Determine Enforceability
The arbitration agreement at issue provided that employees consented to renounce their right to take their employer to court or before a jury, and instead agreed that all company-related disputes would be resolved by an arbitral body. The precedent established in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. concluded that such an agreement is not automatically enforceable in all cases — only in those that meet established legal standards.
As the court stated: "We read Gilmer as requiring the enforcement of arbitration agreements that do not undermine the relevant statutory scheme. The agreement in this case meets that standard." [1] The required standard demands that the arbitration agreement comply with EEOC and NLRB regulations and that the arbitrators possess the ability to enforce the laws protecting workers. Because the Cole–Burns Security arbitration agreement satisfied all of these criteria, the court found it to be valid and enforceable.
Resolving the Question of Arbitrator Expenses
In prior arbitrated cases, all expenses had been paid by the employer. However, Cole v. Burns International Security Services raised the question of whether the employee should bear some or all of the arbitration costs. When Burns International requested that the employee share the fee, the court examined the arbitration agreement and found it to be ambiguous on this point. The court determined that the ambiguity should be resolved against the drafter and, based on the contract signed between the employee and employer, ordered Burns Security to pay the entire arbitrator's fee.
The court further reasoned that, because public law confers both substantive rights and a reasonable right of access to a neutral forum in which those rights can be vindicated, employees cannot be required to pay for the services of a "judge" in order to pursue their statutory rights. [2] In addition, the court stated that for an arbitration agreement to be considered valid, the employer must assume all costs arising from the arbitration process. This ruling reflects the principle that mandatory arbitration cannot be used to price employees out of enforcing their legal rights.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.