New York City Law Blog

Countless attorneys are in the business of helping victims of sexual harassment. They employ their skills, knowledge, and experience in their aggressive pursuit of justice.

Yet for an alarming number of attorneys, that specific legal practice has become personal, if not relatable. While at work, they face frequent harassment from their peer lawyers and supervisors, many in the same practice of representing victims of hostile work environments.

When involved in an employment dispute, employers prefer arbitration over traditional litigation for a number of reasons, including that it costs less than going to trial. For instance, trials take longer so are more expensive. In addition, jurors are often sympathetic to workers, so workers tend to win more money through lawsuits than in arbitration. Employers particularly try to avoid class action lawsuits involving numerous employees, which can cost even more money than resolving disputes with individual employees.

But what happens if a group of employees seeks to resolve their complaints through group arbitration, rather than individually? This was the issue in a recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arbitration is an individual process

When it first began its meteoric rise as perhaps the world's most influential company, Google was known as a great place to work. Its relaxed, creative atmosphere made it appear as if Google was a dream job for up-and-coming developers, designers, and forward-thinkers in tech. But jobs at Google, and the tech sector in general, may not be as worker-friendly as advertised. For example, last November 20,000 Google workers staged a walkout to protest Google's internal handling of sexual harassment claims.

The U.S. Department of Labor recently issued a proposal to allow more salaried workers to earn overtime pay, but legal challenges could be ahead.