Restoring Justice for Workers Act

Summary#

This bill, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act, would limit the use of arbitration in workplace disputes. Its main change is to make most predispute arbitration clauses and class-action waivers for work-related claims invalid, and to allow postdispute arbitration only when a worker gives informed, written consent after a waiting period. The bill aims to restore workers’ access to courts and protect their right to join together in claims.

• Main change: Predispute arbitration agreements that require arbitration of a work dispute would be invalid and unenforceable.
• Postdispute arbitration: Allowed only if it was voluntary, not coerced, accompanied by clear written disclosure, followed a 45-day waiting period, and includes written affirmative consent.
• Class/collective waivers: Predispute waivers of joint, class, or collective claims are invalid. Postdispute waivers are valid only under the same voluntary conditions as postdispute arbitration.
• Who is covered: “Worker” includes employees and independent contractors. The law applies as broadly as the Constitution allows, including domestic household workers.
• Enforcement and remedies: The bill allows private lawsuits for retaliation for refusing arbitration and provides for attorney’s fees and other relief. Courts, not arbitrators, decide whether the new rules apply to a given arbitration agreement.
• Effective date: The law would start on the date it is enacted and apply to disputes that arise or accrue on or after that date, including disputes under older agreements.

What it means for you#

• Workers (employees and contractors):

  • You cannot be required, before a dispute arises, to give up the right to take a workplace claim to court or to join a class or collective action.
  • If you agree to arbitrate after a dispute arises, the agreement must be voluntary, made after clear written notice, include a 45-day waiting period, and include your written consent.
  • You are protected from retaliation or threats for refusing to enter an arbitration agreement.
  • During the required 45-day waiting period, the statute of limitations for your claim is paused (tolled).
  • You can sue in federal court for retaliation related to refusal to arbitrate. Remedies can include attorney’s fees and other relief allowed under certain federal civil-rights statutes.

• Employers and covered entities:

  • You must stop using predispute mandatory arbitration clauses for work disputes. Existing predispute clauses will not be enforceable for disputes arising after enactment.
  • You may offer postdispute arbitration, but must meet the disclosure, waiting-period, and written-consent rules. You cannot coerce or condition employment benefits on acceptance.
  • Courts (not arbitrators) will decide whether an agreement is covered by this new law.
  • Collective bargaining agreements with labor organizations are mostly exempt, but such provisions cannot waive a worker’s right to seek judicial enforcement of constitutional or statutory rights.

• Unions and labor organizations:

  • The bill does not apply to arbitration provisions embodied in a contract between an employer and a labor organization, with the noted limit on waiving judicial enforcement of rights.

• Courts and agencies:

  • More disputes may be litigated in court rather than resolved in arbitration.
  • The National Labor Relations Act is amended to make it an unfair labor practice to require or try to enforce prior waivers of joint or class claims, to coerce such waivers, or to retaliate for refusing them.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on an official cost estimate or fiscal note for this bill.

This could mean:

• Courts may see more filings instead of arbitrations, which could increase court workloads and related administrative costs.
• Employers and other covered entities may face higher legal costs to revise contracts and defend more court cases rather than arbitration.
• There may be increased private enforcement costs (lawyers’ fees, damages) paid in successful litigation; the bill provides for attorneys’ fees in some private suits.
• Agencies that enforce labor laws (such as the NLRB) could face increased enforcement or processing needs; the bill itself does not include a budget for that.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to restore workers’ access to courts and the ability to bring joint, class, or collective claims in work disputes.
• It aims to prevent employers from forcing workers, as a condition of employment, to give up the right to sue or to join together.
• The voluntary-consent rules for postdispute arbitration (disclosure, waiting period, written consent) are meant to ensure arbitration is truly the worker’s choice.
• Including independent contractors and domestic workers broadens protection to many people who provide work but may lack bargaining power.
• Making courts decide whether the law applies is intended to prevent contractual clauses from delegating that issue to arbitrators.

Opponents' View#

(These are potential concerns that follow from the bill’s design or from what the bill does not clearly address.)

• One concern is that shifting many disputes from arbitration to courts could increase litigation costs and delay resolution, for both workers and employers.
• The bill does not provide a fiscal estimate. It is unclear how much extra burden on courts and enforcement agencies would result, or whether additional funding would follow.
• The definition of “work dispute” and the broad inclusion of independent contractors may create legal uncertainty about which matters are covered.
• Transition rules could prompt litigation over older contracts because the law applies to disputes arising after enactment even if the arbitration agreement predates the law.
• The requirement that courts, not arbitrators, decide applicability could lead to more court pretrial litigation about whether arbitration applies, instead of resolving disputes quickly in arbitration.
• It is unclear how the bill will interact with existing Supreme Court interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act and whether further legal challenges over federal law or constitutional questions will follow.