No dispute exists yet
The worker is asked to select a forum before knowing the facts, value or legal significance of a future claim.
Access to justice
Rights on paper need a forum where people can enforce them.
Forced arbitration can require a worker to pursue future legal claims in a private forum as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The central policy question is whether consent is meaningful when declining the term may mean declining employment.
Legal distinction: Arbitration usually does not erase the text of a civil-rights statute. It changes where and how a claim is decided—and may waive access to a court, jury, class or collective proceeding. Those procedural changes can materially affect whether a right is practical to enforce.
The accountability question
What is exchanged when court access is surrendered?
Supporters of voluntary arbitration cite speed, cost and flexibility. The objection addressed here is to predispute mandatory arbitration: agreeing before any dispute exists, often through non-negotiable employment terms.
Bargaining power may be unequal
A form agreement can make arbitration a condition of employment rather than a negotiated choice between equally situated parties.
The public system loses visibility
Private proceedings generally produce less public precedent and fewer accessible records for workers, regulators, researchers and Congress.
Our position
Choose arbitration after a dispute—not as the price of having a job.
Parties should remain free to select arbitration knowingly after a dispute arises. A worker should not have to waive access to public courts and collective procedures before an employer has allegedly violated the law, particularly where no separately negotiated benefit is offered for that waiver.
What is law now
Congress ended forced arbitration for a limited category.
The 2022 law is important, but it is not a general prohibition on forced employment arbitration.
Public Law 117-90
Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act
For disputes or claims arising or accruing on or after March 3, 2022, a person alleging sexual assault or sexual harassment may elect not to enforce a predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver for a case related to that dispute. A court—not an arbitrator—decides whether the law applies.
335–97House passage, February 7, 2022
Voice voteSenate passage, February 10, 2022
March 3, 2022Signed into law
The House vote included 222 Democrats and 113 Republicans voting yes; 97 Republicans voted no; two Republicans did not vote. Because the Senate used a voice vote, there is no senator-by-senator roll-call list for final passage.
See every House member’s vote ↗The broader proposal
The FAIR Act passed the House. It did not become law.
The proposal reached employment, consumer, antitrust and civil-rights disputes—not only sexual-assault and sexual-harassment claims.
House-passed bill
H.R. 963, FAIR Act of 2022
The bill would have made predispute arbitration agreements and predispute joint-action waivers invalid or unenforceable for employment, consumer, antitrust and civil-rights disputes. It preserved the ability to agree to arbitration after a dispute arose and contained a collective-bargaining provision.
Status: Passed the House on March 17, 2022, but received no final Senate passage and expired at the end of the 117th Congress.
222 yes221 Democrats, 1 Republican
209 no209 Republicans
1 not votingRepublican
Every House Democrat voted for H.R. 963. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida was the only Republican voting yes. The official Clerk record identifies every member voting yes, no or not voting.
Current Congress
The FAIR Act has been introduced again.
H.R. 5350, the FAIR Act of 2025, was introduced on September 15, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Its introduced text would prohibit predispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers covering future employment, consumer, antitrust and civil-rights disputes. As of this page’s August 2026 review, it remains introduced—not enacted.
“What rights do workers meaningfully have if enforcing them requires surrendering the public forum Congress created?”
Question for CongressRead H.R. 5350 ↗Questions for oversight
What Congress should ask employers and agencies.
01
How many workers are covered by predispute arbitration agreements and class or collective-action waivers?
02
What separately negotiated value, if any, does a worker receive for waiving access to court?
03
How often do employment claims reach a hearing, settle, or end before an arbitrator decides the merits?
04
What data should employers and arbitration providers disclose about claims, outcomes, fees and repeat users?
05
Should civil-rights claims ever be subject to a predispute forum waiver imposed as a condition of employment?
06
Should workers be free to choose arbitration after a dispute arises, with informed consent and counsel?
Not legal advice: Whether a particular arbitration agreement is enforceable depends on its language, the claim, governing law and current precedent. Deadlines may continue to run while forum questions are disputed. Consult a qualified employment lawyer about an individual case.