Heading to Mid-Terms, Legislation to Bar Mandatory Predispute Arbitration Is Reintroduced

By Dasha Dranovsky

On July 30, Reps. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, D. Va, Jerrold Nadler, D., N.Y., and Sen. Patty Murray, D., Wash., reintroduced the Restoring Justice for Workers Act, which would bar mandatory predispute arbitration in the workplace.

The same Democrats originally introduced the bill in 2018 with the goal of ending pre-dispute arbitration agreements and protecting workers’ ability to pursue employment-related claims in court. See Scott, Nadler, Murray Introduce Legislation to Protect Workers’ Rights by Ending Forced Arbitration in the Workplace, U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce Press Release (July 30, 2026). (See also Tamia Sutherland, "House Subcommittee Introduces Bill that Would Restrict Arbitration," CPR Speaks (Nov. 19, 2021) (available at https://bit.ly/4bX7xur).)

One of the main reasons why arbitration agreements have been so prevalent in employment contracts is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in  Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (May 21, 2018) (available at https://bit.ly/4xKwqSy). Id.

In the case,  the Court held that employers can require workers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements and  condition employment on the signing, and also can enforce contracts that waive a worker’s right to bring a class action suit. (For CPR Speaks concurrent coverage and wide-ranging reaction to the decision, see Russ Bleemer, "Arbitration Practice after Epic Systems," CPR Speaks (May 21, 2018) (available at https://bit.ly/4gBZTYZ).)

If the current version of the bill passes, it will undo this precedent. In the press release on Rep. Scott’s website linked above, the sponsors say that Epic Systems  “dismantled workers’ right to band together to hold unscrupulous employers accountable.”

Sen. Murray stated, “If an employer does something illegal, workers should be able to hold them accountable in a court of law. But far too often, big corporations will cynically leverage long and complicated employment contracts to stack the deck against their workers. It’s manipulative and wrong. This means that—for instance—if workers are victims of wage theft, they can’t join together and go to court because they signed those rights away when they started the job. Workers shouldn’t have to choose between waiving the ability to enforce their rights and earning a living.” Id.

The bill has long odds. Regardless of the composition of Congress, broad limits on the use of arbitration have been nonstarters, despite some more focused successes--most notably this decade, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment and Assault. (For recent developments, see Caroline Hillier, "EFAA Updates from the 9th, 6th & 2nd Circuits: An Arbitration Restriction’s Judicial Refinement," CPR Speaks (July 27, 2026) (available at https://bit.ly/4gg6l6x).) 

The bill has 17 co-sponsors across both the House and the Senate—none are Republican representatives or senators. It has been referred in the Senate to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

According to the sponsors of the Restoring Justice for Workers Act it would:

• Open the courthouse doors for workers by prohibiting the use of forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts and prohibiting employers from requiring employees to waive their right to engage in joint, class, or collective legal action; . . .
• Uphold the rule of law, a cornerstone of our democracy, by ensuring that workers’ rights are enforceable through our justice system; and
• Ensure that post-dispute arbitration agreements are not obtained by threat or coercion, that the agreement is understandable, and that the employee affirmatively consents to the agreement in writing and is fully aware of their rights in the workplace.

In recent years, there has been a run of U.S. Supreme Court arbitration decisions that have fine-tuned its interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. For instance, Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024) (available at https://bit.ly/4avulyl), held that under Section 1, a worker’s employer does not have to be a transportation company in order for the worker to qualify for the section’s exemption from arbitration. This ruling increases the number of workers whose employment agreements are exempt from the FAA. See, e.g., Imre Szalai, "Analyzing the Text: Insights from the Supreme Court’s 2023-2024 Arbitration Rulings," 42 Alternatives 123 (September 2024) (available on Westlaw or by request at Alternatives@cpradr.org).

The expansion of this employment exemption could also be seen in May in Flowers Foods Inc. v. Brock, 146 S. Ct. 1358, 1365 (2026) (available at https://bit.ly/4xFsPVC), where the Court held that local “last-mile” delivery drivers who handle goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey qualify for the FAA Section 1 transportation worker exemption, despite never crossing state lines. Caroline Hillier, "No Limit: The Supreme Court Rejects Narrowing the FAA Sec. 1 Arbitration Exemption," CPR Speaks (May 28, 2026) (available at https://bit.ly/3U82tgD).

One thing is certain: Both legislatures and the judiciary--state and federal--will be are continually examining and re-examining the scope of arbitration with regard to employment.

*  *  * 

The author, entering her second year this month at the Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Va., was a 2025 CPR Summer Intern.

[END]