Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday December 21 2017, @05:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the moving-forward dept.

Microsoft will no longer force the use of arbitration agreements for its employees who file sexual harassment claims, and will support new federal legislation to ban the use of the agreements in sexual harassment cases. In early December, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Lindsey Graham introduced the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act of 2017, that would make "no predispute arbitration agreement [...] valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of a sex discrimination dispute":

This week Microsoft has altered a longstanding corporate policy, eliminating forced arbitration agreements for employees who file claims of sexual harassment—it is believed to be the largest such tech firm to make this notable change. "The silencing of people's voices has clearly had an impact in perpetuating sexual harassment," Brad Smith, Microsoft's president and chief legal officer, told The New York Times on Tuesday. In a blog post, Smith also said that the company would support new federal legislation to end the use of arbitration in sexual harassment cases.

[...] Just last week, Bloomberg reported on previously sealed court filings brought by a former Microsoft intern that stated she was raped by a fellow intern who was later hired at the company.

[...] Arbitration is a private, quasi-legal procedure originally designed to expedite disputes between corporations. But over time, it has evolved into a system where individuals are compelled for a variety of reasons to agree to arbitration decisions versus seeking a court decision. The net result is that disputes that normally would have been adjudicated via the public court process are often processed via private arbitration, which generally favors corporations over individuals.

NYT called the move largely symbolic because only hundreds of employees in Microsoft's senior ranks were subject to the arbitration requirement.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @10:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @10:38AM (#612749)

    Now only if there is a law that prohibits arbitration in judicial process and we might start getting rid of the false cases.