Arbitration deconstruction: Let’s take a look at the mechanics

I thought it would be useful to look at an arbitration agreement approved by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Texas) and, well, take it apart like an engine. We’ll look at why it works to accomplish the employer’s goal of moving a claim from the courtroom to the arbitrator’s conference room. So, let’s pull on our overalls, grab our wrenches, and take a peek under the hood.

Sparks fly

Fisseha Gezu began working for Charter Communications in December 2007. Unfortunately, things didn’t go well for him. He believed he was suffering from discrimination at the company because of his race and national origin. He says he complained to the company, but, well, let’s just say the reception was spotty (according to him).

In October 2017, Charter announced a new employment-based dispute resolution procedure. It was dubbed the “Solution Channel.” (Get it? Collective groan.)

Gezu was fired on May 8, 2019, for what he believed were pretextual (false) reasons to cover up Charter’s unlawful discrimination. He filed suit, but the employer argued the lawsuit must go to arbitration per the terms of the 2017 policy change. The trial court agreed, and the 5th Circuit affirmed the decision.

Little engine that could!

So, as you read the following sections of Charter’s dispute resolution program, ask yourself which parts are key and why. The launch came in the form of an e-mail sent to employees including Gezu: