Cole v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs. - 323 U.S. App. D.C. 133, 105 F.3d 1465 (1997)

Rule:

Where the arbitration arrangement (1) provides for neutral arbitrators, (2) provides for more than minimal discovery, (3) requires a written award, (4) provides for all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court, and (5) does not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any arbitrators' fees or expenses as a condition of access to the arbitration forum, an employee who is made to use arbitration as a condition of employment effectively may vindicate his statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.

Facts:

The employee, Clinton Cole, used to work as a security guard at Union Station for LaSalle and Partners. Subsequently, Burns Security took over LaSalle’s contract to provide security at Union Station and required all LaSalle employees to sign a "Pre-Dispute Resolution Agreement" in order to obtain employment with Burns. The Agreement contained an arbitration clause. In 1993, Burns Security fired Cole. After filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cole filed the instant complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging racial discrimination, harassment based on race, retaliation for his writing a letter of complaint regarding sexual harassment of a subordinate employee by another supervisor at Burns, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Burns moved to compel arbitration of the dispute and to dismiss Cole's complaint pursuant to the terms of the contract. The District Court found that the arbitration agreement clearly covered Cole's claims, and dismissed the complaint. 

Issue:

Was the contract mandating arbitration of employee’s claims enforceable, thereby rendering the employee’s complaint dismissible? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's order, holding that section 1 of Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not exclude all contracts of employment from the coverage of the FAA. The court further noted that an employee could not be required to agree to arbitrate his public law claims as a condition of employment if the arbitration agreement required him to pay all or part of the arbitrator's fees and expenses. In this case, the court found that the contract did not address the issue of payment of the arbitrator. The court held that the employer was required to pay all arbitrators' fees associated with the resolution of the employee's claim. The court found that employees could not be required to pay for the service of a judge in order to pursue statutory rights and held that such a result was consistent with the principle that public law conferred both substantive rights and a reasonable right of access to a neutral forum in which those rights could be vindicated. The court found that the employment contract was valid as construed.