Slashdot Mirror
Uber Drops Arbitration Requirement For Sexual Assault Victims (npr.org)
Previously, Uber required complaints to be resolved in mandatory arbitration -- out of court and behind closed doors. Today, the company announced it is "changing its policies to allow customers, employees and drivers who are sexually harassed or assaulted to take their complaints to court and to speak publicly about their experiences," reports NPR. From the report: Last month, Katherine and Lauren were among 14 female victims who sent an open letter to Uber's board, pointing to the company's own sexual harassment problems and the #MeToo movement. "Silencing our stories deprives customers and potential investors from the knowledge that our horrific experiences are part of a widespread problem at Uber," they wrote. The women's demand -- and Uber's response -- highlight the significance of mandatory arbitration agreements, which are increasingly common. The provisions are usually in the fine print -- and most people who sign the agreements don't know they have signed away their right to sue.
I'm thankful Uber, out of an abundance of caution concerning the potential PR blowup, revised their contracts. These arbitration agreements are going too far and it's time for some common sense regulations.
It should not be legal to sign away your right to sue simply for a common exchange of goods or services.
Can anyone explain how arbitration clauses work? How can a company limit an employee's rights to proceed legally against a company in case of criminal conduct?
That doesn't seem to make sense?
What debate?
Unless you commit 100% you are a white male sexist rapist.
Or so you think there is another allowable position?
After all, trial by pitchfork wielding social media crowds is the new justice, isn't it? Facts and evidence are so last year!
The arbitration clause wouldn't affect a criminal case.
A passenger who felt they were mistreated (rightly or wrongly) could sue Uber for not preventing it somehow, such as by having a more thorough background check of drivers or whatever.
I say "felt they were mistreated" because in many cases people have different viewpoints. There are instances where a clearly a crime was committed, obviously. This new policy also applies to alleged sexual harassment, though. That's a) not a crime (it is a reason to sue) and b) very, very subjective. The definition of sexual harassment is "unwelcome ...", so while one person might think they are both having fun laughing at a joke, the other person might internally feel the joke is unwelcome, and therefore potentially sexual harassment. The EOEC commission definition of sexual harassment also includes things like "offensive comments about women in general". I think most of us have seen a possibly innocent comment construed as "offensive about women in general", because someone heard something different than what the speaker intended or whatever. So there can be instances where everyone agrees no crime was committed, but one person feels a comment was offensive, and therefore sexual harassment.