It is said that an “ounce of prevention is worth of a pound of cure.” Unfortunately, sometimes in life, prevention simply isn’t possible. When these circumstances arise, especially when it comes to your employment situation, the most important thing is to make sure that your response is the right one. This is one of many areas where the advice of an experienced New Jersey discrimination attorney can be key. Take for example, the case of two art institute employees, whose federal discrimination lawsuit survived their employer’s attack based upon its institution of an arbitration policy. The lawsuit survived because the men promptly and explicitly rejected the policy, according to a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that is binding in federal courts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.
The employees, LaMont and Michael, were two men working as assistant directors of admissions at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh. In 2012, after each received “inexplicably harsh and unfair quarterly” performance reviews, complete with ratings of “below expectations,” each man filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Michael alleged that the review was a pretext for age discrimination. LaMont’s assertions were similar but alleged that the basis in his case was age and race discrimination.
Less than two months after the men filed with the EEOC, the institute’s parent company instituted a company-wide alternative dispute resolution (ADR) policy. The policy established multiple tiers of dispute resolution, with the final tier being binding arbitration. The policy stated that it covered, among other things, all employee claims of discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination.