FAIR Act of 2022

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 963. There is nothing fair about the FAIR Act. The bill would undermine Americans' freedom to contract; burden the judicial system, both Federal and in all States in the country; and restrict access to justice.

This bill would ban arbitration agreements across nearly all contracts. It outlaws arbitration agreements in employment disputes, consumer disputes, antitrust disputes, and civil rights disputes. It outlaws arbitration agreements with respect to not only big, huge corporations but the most humble businesses and parties in the country, those that I served in my law practice.

Democrats propose that arbitration is bad for Americans, but it has been a fixture of our legal landscape for almost 100 years. They claim that arbitration is forced. Both of their claims are wrong.

Arbitration has many benefits. It is more efficient and faster than going to court. The rules are not nearly as arcane. Injured parties get their relief sooner, and they spend less money along the way.

Plaintiffs in employment and consumer disputes, according to studies, actually win more in arbitration than they do in court. They get more money in arbitration. They win more often in arbitration.

Democrats know that arbitration has plenty of benefits. How do you know this? Because in this very bill, Democrats have carved out their union friends from the mandates of this bill.

In other words, if the bill becomes law, powerful unions, and no one else, can still use these valuable agreements vis-a-vis individuals.

This carve-out also tells us that Democrats know there is no such thing as forced arbitration. Agreements that are truly forced are already illegal under existing law in every State in the country.

People are no more forced to agree to an arbitration provision than they are to agree to any other provision of a contract. The bill, instead, bans private parties from knowingly and willingly agreeing on a process to resolve future disputes. It tells Americans, no matter how informed or sophisticated they may be, that they can't be trusted to manage their own relationships by agreeing in advance to the means of resolution to be used in the event of a dispute.

Our Democrat colleagues seem to believe that Americans can't be trusted to think for themselves. Big Government needs to tell them what to do. Their freedom to contract should be restricted by the wisdom from Washington.

Democrats argue that this bill is no big deal because parties can still decide to use arbitration after a dispute arises, but that never happens in practice for much the same reason that many disputes go to court and are resolved outside of a jury. About 1 to 2 percent actually go all the way.

The decision to get into a lawsuit is not always purely rational, taken from all points of view, and is often affected by tempers that are different once the dispute has arisen than when the parties are considering a position of cool judgment in advance.

Their incentives change after a dispute has arisen, and people will pick a strategy to resolve that dispute at that time. They won't necessarily be looking for a process, then, that is good for both parties for many reasons.

When you are immersed in a dispute, there is also a greater chance that a lawyer that you may have retained would have an incentive to direct you in the direction of litigation rather than arbitration, and those incentives certainly won't necessarily be consistent with a faster and cheaper alternative.

Rather than helping the little guy stand up to big companies, this bill would take the option to arbitrate off the table for everybody and put more money in the pockets of trial lawyers, most especially plaintiffs' class action trial lawyers.

The bill would force more people into court. They will pay more and possibly recover less. But it would also force some people out of the justice system altogether.

Some people will be unable to pay for an expensive lawsuit, or they may have a claim so small that it is only practicable for them to bring it themselves, which arbitration facilitates.

Let's be clear, too. The surge in new lawsuits hurts employment. It hurts businesses and keeps them from being able to afford to hire more people. It will raise their costs at the worst possible time, when they are already dealing with supply chain problems and record inflation caused by failed Democrat policies, and not only by prohibiting the use of arbitration going forward but by retroactively eliminating it, rendering it null and void in millions of contracts already outstanding right now, at this point in the life of our Nation, when we have 8 percent inflation, another constraint on the supply chain imposed by Democrat policies.

Everyone should be sounding the alarm on this blatant overreach. At the end of the day, this bill curries favor with the plaintiffs' bar and union bosses, and it does so at the expense of hardworking Americans and small businesses, especially.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 963, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The distinguished chairman of the committee offered to correct me by saying that the bill only prohibits forced arbitration, said that was a correction, as if I misspoke as to facts.

Let me read from the language of the bill: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to an employment dispute, consumer dispute, antitrust dispute, or civil rights dispute.''

The word ``forced'' was not in that language, Madam Speaker. It prohibits all predispute arbitration agreements and post-joint action waivers.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Florida, and as I suggested earlier, if the bill were a matter only of big businesses, it would be a very different bill, but just as there is no limitation to forced arbitration agreements in the language of the bill, there is no limitation to arbitration agreements entered into between little guys and big companies.

The very first appeal I ever took in a 30-year law practice in 1992 was in a case called Bennish v. North Carolina Dance Theater, in which I represented a fledgling, very-hard-pressed economically arts group in my hometown that had an employment dispute with a dancer who wanted to litigate. They had an arbitration agreement. It would have destroyed that organization financially to have to engage in extended and expensive litigation. This bill would have made the enforcement of that arbitration agreement unlawful, and it has nothing to do with big business.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We still haven't heard an explanation for why this legislation deems it appropriate to eliminate arbitration for parties of all sizes. We keep hearing about the little guy versus the massive corporation.

Even in that circumstance, of course, what we may be talking about is like the case from 2011, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, where the issue was people in California had bought cell phones, they had been offered a free cell phone, but it wasn't made clear that they would have to pay the sales tax. So

there was a $5 claim per purchaser, and wealthy plaintiffs' class- action lawyers wanted to bring a big lawsuit. With tens of thousands of them, they might get a $5 coupon, but the lawyers would buy a new jet.

That may be in some circumstances, even the dispute with the big guy. But leave that aside. We still don't hear any explanation for why you are wiping out arbitration as a means that parties choose, even if they are on equal bargaining power.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The distinguished gentleman from Georgia suggests that this bill is about whether or not we are preserving the right to jury trial in the Constitution. But I submit, that is not really what is at stake.

The question is whether you resolve a dispute through arbitration or you go to the court system. If you go to the court system, there are innumerable paths within the court system that lead to not having your case decided by a jury.

In fact, only about 1 to 2 percent of cases end up proceeding to a determination by a jury. That means 99 or 98

out of 100 cases do not. They might be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. They might be dismissed for failure to state a claim. There may be settlement processes that come to fruition during the course of the case.

But it is almost never true--think about that--that a case in court goes to a jury. So this notion that this bill, by eliminating the choice of arbitration, somehow preserves everybody's jury trial magically is a false choice.

And more to that point, the gentleman from Georgia, and also the chairman, in the inception, noted that we have just had a bill signing of a bill that excepts from enforceable arbitration agreements the category of sexual assault, sexual harassment. The majority of Republicans supported that.

The majority of Republicans will not support this bill because it represents the throwing out of the entire mechanism of arbitration, which has been, as I indicated, a feature of the legal landscape used with great utility and utilized throughout the last hundred years almost, since 1925.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On the other side of the aisle, we hear repeated references to defending the Constitution and the American way. I would remind the Chamber that our economy, the American economy, is built on contracts; which contracts, under the rule of law, are not forced, but enforced when someone refuses to abide by his or her agreement. That is not forced. That is where a contract is enforced.

We, our courts, our judicial system, and, yes, arbitration is the means by which we call people to live by their bargains, and that has been the key to the most successful economy in the history of the world. It has certainly been the state of affairs, as I said, for almost 100 years.

Throwing that out, dispensing with a major component of that on the premise that you are pursuing the American system is contrary to fact. It is, as Democrats often seek to do, it is transformational. It seeks to transform America, not to reinforce and persist it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks.

It causes me to remark, as the gentleman from Tennessee said a moment ago, that it is Democrats who look out for the interests of the little guy and look out for the interests of the people. I wonder why it is that looking out for the interests of the people invariably involves restricting their freedom in some way. What a remarkable notion.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that we have heard repeated a number of times, as the gentleman from Rhode Island suggested and the gentlewoman from Washington just said, is that if you go to arbitration, the company picks the arbitrators, and that is it. That is not, in fact, correct.

Courts police the fundamental fairness of the arbitration process. If there is a process that is fundamentally unfair, the courts will modify it until it is fair. So, that is a misconception.

Furthermore, it has also been suggested that it is by the whim of the arbitrator what the result is. That is exactly what Mr. Cicilline, I believe, said. That also is erroneous.

If an arbitrator writes a decision that manifests a disregard of the governing law, like the soldier who had been in arbitration for 8 years that he suggested, the courts will vacate, strike down, that arbitration award.

It is important to know those premises before you decide what to do on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by the situation we just had on the floor, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, I think she said she represented big corporations. Yet, she spoke to the fundamental unfairness of arbitration. It is ironic perhaps.

I spent almost 30 years--29 years in the practice of law as a litigator representing people in court and in arbitration equally. I represented plaintiffs and defendants both, frequently individuals, often businesses, always small to medium-sized businesses, and occasionally a local government or two, never a big company.

I have had clients who didn't want to have arbitration agreements enforced and sometimes I could defeat them or have them modified or change the results of them because the arbitrator had manifested disregard for the law. Sometimes I had clients who wanted to enforce those agreements. It depends on the circumstances.

But I can tell you it is not a tool that is uniformly bad. Although I have voted for accepting enforceable arbitration agreements, arbitration clauses involving sexual harassment and sexual assault cases, I don't believe that throwing the baby out with the bath water is a good idea. It is a terrible idea.

Let me let America in on the inside scoop. Here is what this is about. For the past, roughly, decade there have been a series of cases in the United States Supreme Court in which, through various efforts and methods, plaintiffs' class action lawyers, lawyers for big class litigation where they make millions and millions in fees, have tried various approaches to get the United States Supreme Court to allow class actions to be pursued through arbitration, and they have failed. That is why this bill is here.

The bill is to reverse the result of that decade of litigation in the Supreme Court in order for class action lawyers to be able to have a field day and to make a lot of money. This bill protects and seeks the fortune of plaintiffs' class action lawyers, and of course, it protects the patronage of big unions both at the same time. That is what the bill is about.

Madam Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 979 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met on and reported a rule, House Resolution 979, providing for consideration of H.R. 963, the FAIR Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order one amendment and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, the bills we discuss today have to do with fundamental American values.

The first bill under this rule, the FAIR Act, simply restores the right of individuals to have their day in court.

It prevents the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts.

Most likely, all of us have signed a contract with a forced arbitration clause, and many may not even know it. How many Americans have read their cell phone contract? How many have read their credit card contract?

Too many consumer contracts are written to protect the pockets of corporations, leaving consumers at the mercy of a system created by, paid by, and focused on minimizing liabilities of corporate companies.

These documents are dozens of pages long, and most contain clauses that require arbitration in case of a legal dispute and prevent the consumer from going to court as an alternative. There is no negotiation or choice.

Ask yourselves, if you saw something that you objected to in a contract for your cell phone, what option do you have to change it? The answer is no choice at all.

That is why this is called forced arbitration, and these requirements game the system in favor of one party, large corporations. If there is a dispute, corporations get to pick the location of arbitration, and in many cases, it is out of State; pick the arbitrator; and pay for them. Yes, the impartial arbitrator, who depends on corporate contractors, is paid for by the corporation. And corporations get to shield the results from the public. Imagine that.

The FAIR Act stops this harmful and abusive behavior. It bans forced arbitration clauses in employment, civil rights, and consumer disputes.

Congress just passed legislation that changed this process for disputes involving sexual harassment. However, there are tens of millions of Americans who are still affected by forced arbitration in other contexts, and this legislation provides those same protections to them as well.

Ensuring fairness under the law is at the center of the second bill being considered under this rule, the CROWN Act. This bill would ensure that discrimination based on race is not masked as discrimination about hairstyles.

This is legislation that we passed by a voice vote last Congress with no objection from the other side. But this year, Republicans decided that something had changed--not with the legislation, but with their Conference--since they objected to the consideration of this bill under suspension.

The CROWN Act simply clarifies what studies have shown, that oftentimes women, particularly Black women, are discriminated against based on their natural hair.

Courts have rejected previous guidance finding that discrimination on the basis of hairstyle or hair texture is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. So, this legislation simply makes these protections clear, that you cannot discriminate on the basis of a person's hair texture or hairstyle if that style or texture is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.

I believe that both of these bills will help to make our legal system more fair for every single one of us. I urge passage of the rule and these bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am going to share three stories from hardworking Americans.

Connie Nagrampa, a California resident, started working as a franchisee for a marketing company. The company cheated her out of her investments, her life investments. When she tried to seek accountability, they forced her into arbitration.

The company, conveniently enough for them, chose to move the arbitration process across the country to the city of Boston. A California resident was expected to fly herself and pay for all of her expenses to Boston to seek justice. It was too expensive, obviously, for somebody who has just lost her life savings. She lost the arbitration as a result, and the arbitrator said she had to pay more money to the company. Connie spent years attempting to overturn that unjust cause.

Now let me tell you about a brave American Navy reservist, Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ziober, whose employer fired him the same day he was deployed to Afghanistan. This is blatantly illegal under Federal law. But because the employer had forced all of their employees to sign a forced arbitration clause, he was unable to make his claim in Federal court and get his job back.

That is what they are defending.

Let me tell you about another brave military servicemember, Charles Beard, whose rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA, were violated by his bank.

SCRA is a bipartisan law which provides financial and legal protections to servicemembers and their families when they are on Active Duty. This is especially important given how vulnerable Active Duty servicemembers can be to predatory lending schemes, identity theft, or other unfair financial practices when they are deployed or on Active Duty.

Mr. Beard is a former sergeant in the Army National Guard, now 100 percent VA disabled. When he was on tour in Iraq, his wife at the time and their five children relied on one vehicle. One day the bank decided to repossess that vehicle. It was no longer convenient to keep that loan open for somebody risking their life for us, our country.

This, too, was a violation of the Federal law SCRA because he was deployed. When he tried to hold the bank publicly accountable in court, he was forced into arbitration because of a forced arbitration clause buried in the fine print.

These are just three stories of hardworking Americans. These are the stories of real people that we need to stand up for and protect.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are supposed to be debating two very important bills to help Americans continue to thrive in this great country, but instead my colleagues across the aisle want to debate

about something that they know is incorrect.

There are over 9,000 approved drilling permits the oil industry is not using. And the truth is that changes in domestic energy policy often take years to impact global energy markets. They know that.

But instead, what is happening here is oil companies are using Putin's war as an excuse to jack up prices at the pump even more, and then they argue for looser regulations, cheaper drilling, and more pollution.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 4, 2022, opinion article from The Guardian written by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva entitled ``Oil and Gas Lobbyists are Using Ukraine to Push for a Drilling Free-for-All in the U.S.''

[From the Guardian, Mar. 4, 2022]

Oil and Gas Lobbyists Are Using Ukraine To Push for a Drilling Free-

for-All in the US

(By Raul M. Grijalva)

Last week, we all watched in horror as Vladimir Putin

launched a deadly, catastrophic attack on Ukraine, violating

international treaties across the board. Most of us swiftly

condemned his actions and pledged support for the Ukrainian

people whose country, homes and lives are under attack.

But the fossil-fuel industry had a different take. They saw

an opportunity--and a shameless one at that--to turn violence

and bloodshed into an oil and gas propaganda-generating

scheme. Within hours, industry-led talking points were oozing

into press releases, social media and opinion pieces, telling

us the key to ending this crisis is to immediately hand US

public lands and waters over to fossil-fuel companies and

quickly loosen the regulatory strings.

Our top priority must be ending Putin's hostilities, but as

chair of the US House committee on natural resources, I feel

duty-bound to set the record straight. We can't let the

fossil-fuel industry scare us into a domestic drilling free-

for-all that is neither economically warranted nor

environmentally sound.

Despite industry's claims to the contrary, President Biden

has not hobbled US oil and gas development. In fact, much to

my deep disappointment and protest, this administration

actually approved more US drilling permits per month in 2021

than President Trump did during each of the first three years

of his presidency. Before the pandemic, oil and gas

production from public lands and waters reached an all-time

high, and the current administration has done little to

change that trajectory over the last 13 months.

Fossil-fuel companies and their backers in Congress also

profess that more drilling on public lands and waters would

lower gas prices for Americans. But if that's true, why

hasn't record oil extraction from both federal and non-

federal lands over the last decade done anything to

consistently lower, or at least stabilize, prices at the

pump?

The fact is that crude oil is a volatile global commodity.

Worldwide supply, demand, and unpredictable events--like

wars--influence the price of gas, not the current

administration's decision to approve a few new leases or

permits.

Even if we take industry's claims at face value, nothing is

keeping fossil-fuel companies from more drilling on public

lands right now. The oil industry already controls at least

26m acres of public land and is sitting on more than 9,000

approved drilling permits they're not using.

They have a similarly gratuitous surplus offshore, where

nearly 75% of their active federal oil and gas leases,

covering over 8m acres, have yet to produce a single drop.

Any new leases issued today wouldn't produce anything of

value for years, or even decades in some cases.

If industry did start to ramp up production from federal

leases, the overall increase to the total US supply would

likely be marginal. In 2020, public lands and waters only

accounted for 22% and 11% of oil and gas production,

respectively. The vast majority of oil and gas resources are

beneath state and private lands--not public lands or federal

waters.

With the facts laid bare, we see the fossil-fuel industry's

crocodile tears for what they are--the same old demands for

cheaper leases and looser regulations they've been peddling

for decades. These pleas have nothing to do with countering

Putin's invasion or stabilizing gas prices, and everything to

do with making oil and gas development as easy and profitable

as possible.

The US is the world's top oil and gas producer. Doubling

down on fossil fuels is a false solution that only

perpetuates the problems that got us here in the first place.

And quite frankly, we can't afford to maintain the status

quo. In its newest report the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most dire warning yet on the

rapidly accelerating climate crisis. If we fail to enact

major mitigation efforts, like curbing fossil-fuel

development, both quickly and substantially, we will ``miss a

brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a

livable and sustainable future for all''.

Fortunately, there is a path forward that simultaneously

cuts the lifeline to fossil-fuel despots like Putin,

stabilizes energy prices here at home, and creates a safer,

more sustainable planet. We must wean ourselves off our oil

and gas dependence and make transformational investments in

cleaner renewable energy technologies, like those in the

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Build Back Better Act and

the Competes Act, and we must do it now.

The fossil-fuel industry has had hold of the microphone for

far too long. It's time we let the facts speak for

themselves.

Madam Speaker, if my colleagues were so concerned about oil prices or the welfare and security of humanity in the crisis that is happening in Ukraine, maybe they should have stepped up and inquired about the five meetings that the previous administration held in secret without staff, only a translator, with Vladimir Putin.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the rule allows for consideration of these two bills, which will ensure that we are providing better protections for consumers and employees.

The FAIR Act stops large corporations from gaming the system in their favor, and allows consumers the opportunity to have their day in court.

And the CROWN Act ensures that we do not allow discrimination in any way, shape, or form. These are commonsense bills that help the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 900, I call up

the bill (H.R. 4445) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration of disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4445.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, would restore access to justice for survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment who are forced to settle their disputes against their harassers and abusers in a private system of arbitration that is often stacked against them.

Arbitration was originally developed as an alternative to the court system for parties of relatively equal bargaining power to enter into voluntarily. In recent decades, however, forced arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous in our lives, largely in the form of take-it-or- leave-it contracts between very large companies and individual consumers. As a result, these clauses have rendered our court system, in which plaintiffs have far stronger protections, inaccessible to far too many.

Nowhere is that trend more apparent or problematic than in the workplace. It is projected that, by 2024, 80 percent of private-sector workers will be forced to sign an arbitration clause when accepting employment. And consider that, over the past 5 years, employers prevailed over their employees in 98 percent of these arbitration cases. But these numbers cannot capture the true human toll of forced arbitration.

Last November, the Judiciary Committee heard powerful testimony from four survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment about their harrowing experiences and the deep wounds they continue to carry with them to this day. It was a hearing none of us will forget, and we appreciate these brave women coming forward and sharing their stories.

Each of these women was subject to horrific treatment by a person with power over their lives. Then, when they sought to hold their assailants accountable in court, they were forced to relive the trauma of their harassment and assault to find that their only recourse was a secretive arbitration process that was stacked against them.

Forced arbitration clauses, buried deep in the fine print of the paperwork required as a condition of employment, have bound workers to a system in which they are nearly guaranteed to fail, foreclosed the possibility of ever having their day in court, and in almost every case taken away their right even to discuss their experience.

The company gets to pick the judge and the jury, truncate the discovery process, choose the law applied, and

prevent all appeals. When the company wins, it can request that the victim pay its attorney's fees, and it can ensure that misconduct never sees the light of day.

H.R. 4445 removes these barriers to justice for survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment by giving them a real choice of whether to go to court or to arbitrate their claim.

In doing so, this legislation ends this unjust and, frankly, repulsive system in which American companies are better off retaliating against victims of sexual assault than taking responsibility and holding perpetrators responsible for their horrific actions.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to Members of Congress dated February 4, 2022, and a letter to House leadership dated February 7, 2022, both from organizations in support of H.R. 4445.

February 4, 2022.

Re Pass the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and

Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (HR. 4445).

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned

organizations, we write in support of the Ending Forced

Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of

2021 (H.R. 4445), a bill that would provide important new

opportunities for individuals who experience sexual

harassment and assault to seek justice without being forced

into closed-door and secretive forced arbitration

proceedings, where the deck is too often stacked against

them.

Today, individuals are routinely forced to sign an

arbitration clause to resolve disputes as a condition of

obtaining a job or purchasing a good or service, often

through language buried in fine print. Many individuals who

sign such documents have no idea they have waived the ability

to enforce their rights in court. Arbitrators are often

chosen and paid by companies. There is no public record of

the proceedings or the outcome, and rarely an opportunity to

appeal the arbitrator's decision. Many who come forward with

reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault, cannot afford

legal counsel. The arbitration clause may force them to bear

some of the significant costs of the arbitration. The

resolution of their disputes may fail to make them whole for

the harm they have suffered.

The lack of public accountability enabled by forced

arbitration has played a harmful role in allowing sexual

harassment and assault to persist in the shadows. In the four

years since #MeToo went viral, thousands of individuals,

disproportionately women, have come forward to share their

experiences--many several years after the fact--and to demand

justice. When women and all those who have experienced

assault and harassment share their stories, it gives others

the courage to come forward as well. But when women who

report such conduct are forced into arbitration, that

secretive process with no public accountability further

silences survivors, and employers and companies can continue

to employ and protect serial sexual harassers.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual

Harassment Act is an important step towards restoring power

to survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment by

ensuring they will not be forced into arbitration. It is

admittedly a partial solution, as no individual should be

forced to waive their ability to fully enforce their rights

to be free from other forms of unlawful harassment,

discrimination, and exploitation, whether as workers, as

consumers, as patients, or as students. We are therefore

hopeful that as a complement to this bill, Congress will

quickly take up and pass the FAIR Act (H.R. 963) and

Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 4841), which would

ensure that companies can no longer circumvent the legal

system by forcing individuals into arbitration. But the

Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual

Harassment Act represents an important partial restoration of

individuals' rights to seek accountability and justice.

Accordingly, we urge you to support this legislation. If you

have any questions, please contact Emily Martin

(emartin@nwlc.org) at the National Women's Law Center.

Sincerely,

National Women's Law Center, National Employment Law

Project, National Employment Lawyers Association.

I thank my colleagues, Representatives Bustos, Griffith, Jayapal, and Buck, for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), the sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), another distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), another distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), another distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), another distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, removes barriers to justice for survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment by giving them a real choice of whether to go to court or to arbitrate their claim after the dispute has arisen.

Mr. Jordan is right. Many such victims, if given the choice, will choose to go to court. Why shouldn't they? In arbitration, they lose 98 percent of the cases. The employer wins 98 percent of the cases in arbitration. Why? Well, for one thing, the employer picks the arbitrator, and the arbitrator is paid. So, naturally, the arbitrator wants to rule in such a way that he or she is likely to get hired again.

But 98 percent of the cases brought by women who have been sexually harassed who are in forced arbitration are lost by them. That is why this bill is necessary.

If we want to give women who have been sexually harassed a fair chance at justice, we must pass this bill. If we want to give women who have been sexually harassed a fair chance at winning against their employer who did the sexual harassment or allowed the sexual harassment, we must pass this bill.

That is why this critical measure is supported by a broad coalition of public interest organizations, including the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Partnership for Women and Families, RAINN, and many others.

Not one single group that deals with sexual violence opposes this bill. Only employer organizations oppose this bill because it stacks the deck in their favor.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Bustos, Griffith, Jayapal, and Buck, for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

This amendment simply clarifies that H.R. 4445 does not amend current law outside of the Federal Arbitration Act. It reflects the bipartisan input of several of my colleagues in the House and Senate, including the bill's sponsor, Congresswoman Bustos.

Importantly, this amendment would protect the rights of survivors of sexual harassment by ensuring that they have a choice of litigating or arbitrating any case relating to the conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable law. It does so by making clear that anything related to sexual harassment or assault as currently defined by law is covered by this bill.

This would include retaliation or any other misconduct that gives rise to the underlying claim alleging a violation of these laws and reflects an important compromise struck to protect these cases.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, in closing, I thank Mr. Buck for offering this helpful amendment.

I thank Ms. Speier, and I thank all the people who have been so helpful on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 979, I call up the bill (H.R. 963) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 963.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 963, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act, is critical legislation that would restore access to justice for millions of Americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that is often skewed in the company's favor over the individual.

Private arbitration has been transformed, by 40 years of reckless Supreme Court decisions, from a voluntary forum for companies to resolve commercial disputes into a legal nightmare for millions of consumers, employees, and others who are forced into arbitration and are unable to enforce certain fundamental rights in court.

By burying a forced arbitration clause deep in the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it consumer and employment contracts, companies can evade the court system, where plaintiffs have far greater legal protections, and hide wrongdoing behind a one-sided process that is tilted in their favor.

For example, arbitration generally limits discovery; does not adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; can prohibit class actions, which it almost always does; and deny the right of appeal. Worse yet, arbitration allows the proceedings, and often even the results, to stay secret, thereby permitting companies to avoid public scrutiny of potential misconduct.

For millions of workers and consumers, the precondition, whether they know it or not, of obtaining a basic service or product, such as a bank account, a cell phone, a credit card, or even a job, is that they must sign a nonnegotiable contract that includes a provision requiring all disputes to be resolved in private arbitration.

These take-it-or-leave-it contracts, which were once clearly disfavored under the law, now seem to have been blessed by the Supreme Court as standard operating procedure in the corporate world.

That means for millions of people, the ability to enforce consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights laws are subject to the whims of a private arbitrator, often selected by the companies themselves.

These private arbitrators are not required to provide plaintiffs any of the fundamental protections guaranteed in the courts, and their further employment can depend on building a good reputation with the companies that hire them. Unsurprisingly, arbitration has become a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card many companies use to circumvent the basic rights of consumers and workers.

The FAIR Act reverses this disastrous trend by prohibiting the enforcement of forced arbitration clauses in consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights disputes.

Importantly, this legislation does not preclude both parties from agreeing to arbitrate a claim after a dispute arises. It does, however, protect unsuspecting consumers and employees from being forced to give up their right to seek justice in court.

Last month, Congress came together in a bipartisan fashion to prohibit forced arbitration clauses in suits concerning sexual harassment and sexual assault. Watching that legislation be signed into law was a proud moment for many of us in this Chamber. This bill simply extends the same basic fairness in that bill to other workers and consumers.

That bipartisan bill, which gathered, as I recall, about 130 Republican votes, is exactly the same as this bill, only limited in its application.

Every argument for that bill is an argument for this bill. This bill simply extends the same basic fairness in that bill, as I said, to other workers and consumers.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for his leadership on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to correct something Mr. Bishop said. This bill does not ban arbitration. It bans forced arbitration. It bans the practice or the enforceability of the practice of having a provision in a contract that you sign to buy anything or an employment contract where you are forced, that is there and that if you try to change it, they won't sell you the car, they won't sell you the cell phone, they won't hire you, so you have no choice, and that forced arbitration removes the constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to point out that this bill does not ban arbitration. If two parties have a dispute and prefer arbitration to going to court, they can have arbitration. This bill bans forced arbitration, meaning arbitration that is entered into contracts that people have no ability to change. That is why it says pre-dispute arbitration agreements are struck by this bill, not post-dispute arbitration agreements.

So this bill does not eliminate arbitration agreements if they want to. It does eliminate forced arbitration agreements that the party, usually the employee or the consumer had no knowledge of probably and no ability to say no to. We used to call them contracts of adhesion, but we don't do that anymore.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would significantly weaken this legislation and damage the collective bargaining process for tens of millions of working Americans.

We have said it over and over again today--this bill is not designed to eliminate arbitration. While my Republican colleagues would like you to believe that the FAIR Act will end arbitration entirely, that is simply not true.

The FAIR Act would put an end to forced arbitration--arbitration that is not willingly agreed to by both sides, which is a predatory one- sided practice created by and for huge corporations to allow them to get away with abusive conduct. It is a system that can exist only when these companies can take advantage of a stark power imbalance between themselves and workers, consumers, and small businesses.

Labor unions correct that power imbalance. The collective bargaining process provides real protections that are unavailable to nonunion workers by forcing big businesses to compromise with skilled negotiators focused on improving terms for their workers.

Collective bargaining guarantees other important protections in the arbitration process, such as truly neutral arbitrators, better procedures, transparent decisionmaking, and the option to appeal decisions. It creates a system that can actually resolve disputes quickly, efficiently--and most important--fairly for all parties involved.

That is not forced arbitration precisely because it is truly voluntary. Arbitration only works when two parties of equal bargaining power can negotiate terms that work for everyone involved, which is exactly what happens when a labor union and a corporation establish a collective bargaining agreement.

That is completely different than forced arbitration of nonunion employment disputes where an employee is forced to accept an arbitration clause that is buried deep inside the fine print of a stack of confusing paperwork on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that they must sign to get a job.

The big corporations love this system because it forces their workers, it forces employees, it forces the purchasers of products to go to forced arbitration, and that is an inherently skewed process. That is why the employee loses 98 percent of the forced arbitrations. The employer wins 98 percent of the forced arbitrations. That is not a fair process.

Moreover, as my colleague, Congressman Perlmutter, made clear during the Rules Committee meeting on this bill, nothing in the FAIR Act prevents individual workers from deciding to vindicate their rights before a jury.

As the plain language of the bill states, no collectively bargained arbitration provision ``shall have the effect of waiving the right of a worker to seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under a provision of the Constitution of the United States, a State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public policy arising therefrom.''

In other words, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem that could upend the rights of millions of workers today. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to vote for the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there are over 60 million workers--a majority of nonunion private-sector employees--who are subject to forced arbitration clauses. According to the Economic Policy Institute, that number will be over 80 million by 2024. Those employees are told that if they want to get a job or keep their current job they must sign away their right to their day in court and submit to a forced arbitration agreement. In most cases they do not have a choice.

When these workers seek to hold their employers to account for wage theft, civil rights abuses, or racial discrimination, they are shoved into a secretive arbitration process designed by corporations with almost unlimited resources, and they lose 98 percent of the time. That is what the FAIR Act will fix. This legislation will restore these workers' access to our justice system and guarantee their constitutional rights by ending forced arbitration.

This amendment would do nothing to protect workers while undermining this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary and harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership, and I thank my distinguished friend from Illinois, Congresswoman Bustos for her constant determination.

It is wonderful that H.R. 4445 is restoring freedom and justice to women. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that will not allow any pre-dispute arbitration agreement or pre-dispute joint action waiver to be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to a sexual assault dispute or sexual harassment dispute.

I am glad to hear friends on the other side, as this is a bipartisan bill, acknowledge the fact that this is an absolute injustice; an injustice that befalls a certain segment of the population, and that is women.

One of the cases that is most stark is the one of Stefani Bambace. Many witnesses came before us in the Judiciary

Committee. Witness after witness gave us horror stories of isolation and fear and the absolute inability, because of the fine print, to do anything about it.

Stefani Bambace alleged that she worked in a sexually charged and hostile work environment, including being subjected to sexually explicit language from her employer, sexual advances and groping. Let me say that again. Touching in her space from her employer, sexual advances and groping and explicit images. How can you work as a professional or anyone? Think of the levels of work that women are in; from domestic to as high a level as scientists and CEOs. But yet, they are subjected to this kind of behavior.

According to Ms. Bambace's petition, she complained to human resources to no avail about the harassment. And guess what her relief was? Guess what empathy was shown? Guess what comfort and reforming the system was? It was her being fired. That is right. She was fired. How many stories of women are there, that are yet not told, who were fired?

And so this agreement of which my colleague has worked on, and we are pleased in the Judiciary Committee to be part of moving this legislation, this will end these arbitration agreements that are snuck into a packet of materials that you sign.

It is imperative we pass it, but more importantly Madam Speaker, it is imperative that it is passed in the Senate because it is bipartisan, but it is signed by the President and becomes law.

I thank Ms. Bambace and all of the witnesses that came before us. They sacrifice, they suffered, but yet today, hopefully, will be an announcement, a pronouncement of freedom and justice for women who have struggled with this all of the time.

H.R. 4445 is a relief that is a long time in coming, and it should move away from blind, silent, quiet agreements that no one knows what it is. Freedom and justice for women in the workforce today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.

This bill will amend Title 9 of the United States Code, empowering survivors of sexual assault and harassment by restoring their access to justice and public accountability under the law.

By ending forced arbitration in lawsuits involving these claims, survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment are empowered with making the decision on whether they wish to pursue legal action against their assailants which often includes going to court to arbitrate their claims.

It is estimated that 60 million Americans have signed away their right to seek real justice and most don't realize it until they try to get help.

H.R. 4445 will not allow any pre-dispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver to be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to a sexual assault dispute or a sexual harassment dispute.

In the Judiciary markup which brought this bill to the floor, survivors of sexual harassment and sexual assault shared their stories with the committee about their devastating experiences and the subsequent arbitration process they were forced to endure as a condition of their employment.

The #MeToo movement chipped away at the culture of secrecy that protects predators and silences survivors.

Ending mandatory arbitration has the power to ensure that survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace have their voices heard.

For example, in Bambace v. Berry Y&V Fabricators, LLC, Stefani Bambace alleged that she worked in a sexually charged and hostile work environment, including ``being subjected to sexually explicit images from her employer, sexual advances, and groping.''

According to her petition, she complained to Human Resources about the harassment and was fired three weeks later.

She filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

Like more than half of non-unionized American workers, Bambace was subject to an employer promulgated arbitration agreement.

These arbitration agreements are often snuck into a packet of materials employers give employees on their first day of employment to sign and they are rarely negotiated or even discussed.

In a well-reasoned opinion in Bambace, the Court held that the arbitration agreement, which required the Plaintiff to litigate sexual harassment claims in confidential and binding arbitration, violated public policy, injured the public good, and was therefore void and unenforceable.

Critically, the Court further rejected Defendant's argument that the arbitrator, not the Court, should determine whether the sexual harassment claims were subject to arbitration.

Fortunately, in the Bambace case Harris County Judge Lauren Reeder understood that cases such as these should be determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator irrespective of whether the agreement purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.

This is just one story out of millions where forced arbitration agreements attempt, and usually succeed, to silence sexual assault and sexual harassment victims.

These forced ``agreements'' strip survivors of the right to decide how to pursue accountability of their predators.

Instead, these survivors' stories are heard in secret, behind closed doors, and do little to nothing to stop the systematic abuse from occurring again.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 will ensure that these survivors will have their voices heard in a court of law if they choose to do so.

No survivor of sexual harassment or sexual assault should be forced into silence, especially by a piece of paper buried within their employment agreement.

Forced arbitration allows companies to hide and shield sexual predators and keep employees from knowing that their other colleagues could be victims of the same person.

Voiding these clauses in sexual harassment and discrimination cases would aid victims by pulling back the veil of secrecy on bad behavior in the workplace.

More than 56% of Americans are subject to these mandatory arbitration agreements.

These victims deserve the right to choose to go to court, it should not be in the hands of their employer.

A 2011 Cornell University study found that employees are less likely to win arbitration cases.

These corporations embrace arbitration because it is a cheaper and faster way to settle disputes and can cut down frivolous lawsuits.

Corporations do not want to face juries because they know citizens will punish them for their wrongdoing, so they sneak arbitration language into their take-it-or-leave-it contracts.

Forced arbitration is a sexual harasser's best friend, it is an issue of fundamental human rights.

Eliza Dushku, an actress, testified that she had been fired from the CBS prime-time drama ``Bull'' after she asked her co-star, Michael Weatherly, a producer on the show, to stop harassing her.

She said he had made rape jokes about her and had told her in front of dozens of cast and crew members that he wanted to be in a threesome with her.

She said she had later learned that the contract she signed with CBS included a forced arbitration clause.

After a mediation, the company agreed to a confidential settlement that would pay Ms. Dushku $9.5 million.

Situations such as Ms. Dushku's aim to sweep sexual harassment and assault cases under the rug.

Silencing these victims is exactly what forced arbitration agreements are meant to do and I believe we should no longer tolerate this behavior.

This is an excellent and common-sense bill that will ensure victims are not silenced by forced arbitration agreements any longer.

Although we cannot bring justice and a voice for those who have already settled their cases to their arbitration agreements, we can ensure that future victims will be heard and not suppressed in their truth.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House and the Committee on Homeland Security, and as Chair of

the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, is bipartisan and bicameral legislation that empowers survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment by giving them a choice to go to court instead of being forced into arbitration.

This legislation would amend the Federal Arbitration Act for disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment in order to stop employers and businesses from forcing employees and customers out of the court system and into arbitration.

It would ensure that predispute arbitration clauses and waivers of the right to bring joint actions in cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment would not be valid or enforceable for cases that are filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law.

Under current law, many employment and other contracts require binding arbitration for a wide range of matters before a dispute arises, which denies survivors the ability to decide whether to pursue their claim with the procedural protections provided by courts, and silences victims of abuse by forcing them into a confidential dispute forum without the right to appeal.

Madam Speaker, more than 60 million Americans are subject to mandatory arbitration clauses in the workplace, often without realizing it until they come forward to bring a claim against their employer.

The Report of the Co-Chairs of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace notes that between 50-75 percent of women have faced some form of unwanted or unwelcome sexual harassment in the workplace.

Additionally, contracts for services may include mandatory arbitration clauses in the fine print that shield companies and businesses from being held publicly accountable for the harm caused.

I support this necessary legislation because it advances efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment and sexual assault, strengthen rights, protect victims, and promote access to justice.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.