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.
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.
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.
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.
"Supreme Court oversight ensures statutory compliance"
"Steps employees and lawyers can take going forward"
"Employer benefits of mandatory arbitration agreements"
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.