Union Calendar No. 198
117th CONGRESS 2d Session |
[Report No. 117–270]
To amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration.
February 11, 2021
Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Aguilar, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. Barragán, Ms. Bass, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Blunt Rochester, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Carson, Mr. Casten, Mr. Castro of Texas, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Crist, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Dean, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Delgado, Mrs. Demings, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Deutch, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Foster, Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. García of Illinois, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Higgins of New York, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Jeffries, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Jones, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Keating, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mrs. Lawrence, Mr. Lawson of Florida, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Levin of Michigan, Mr. Levin of California, Mr. Lieu, Mr. Lowenthal, Mrs. Luria, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Malinowski, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. McBath, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McEachin, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neguse, Ms. Newman, Ms. Norton, Mr. O'Halleran, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Payne, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Peters, Mr. Phillips, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Porter, Ms. Pressley, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Raskin, Miss Rice of New York, Ms. Ross, Mr. Rush, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Sánchez, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Schrader, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Sires, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Soto, Ms. Spanberger, Ms. Speier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stevens, Ms. Strickland, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Takano, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Titus, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Torres of New York, Mrs. Torres of California, Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Trone, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Vela, Ms. Velázquez, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Welch, Ms. Wild, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Mr. Yarmuth, and Ms. Bush) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
March 11, 2022
Additional sponsors: Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Crow, Mr. Allred, Mr. Kahele, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Omar, Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Houlahan, Ms. Underwood, Mr. Lamb, Ms. Manning, Mrs. Lee of Nevada, Ms. Waters, Mrs. Axne, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Morelle, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Kind, Ms. Slotkin, Ms. Wexton, Ms. Sherrill, Ms. Schrier, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Chu, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Mrvan, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Schneider, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Golden, Mr. Norcross, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Costa, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Ms. Adams, Mr. Horsford, and Mrs. Bustos
March 11, 2022
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on February 11, 2021]
To amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the “Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act of 2022” or the “FAIR Act of 2022”.
The purposes of this Act are to—
SEC. 3. Arbitration of employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes.
(a) In general.—Title 9 of the United States Code is amended by adding at the end the following:
“Sec.
“501. Definitions.
“502. No validity or enforceability.
“In this chapter—
“(1) the term ‘antitrust dispute’ means a dispute—
“(2) the term ‘civil rights dispute’ means a dispute—
“(A) arising from an alleged violation of—
“(ii) any Federal, State, or local law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, or any legally protected status in education, employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, veterans or servicemembers, health care, or a program funded or conducted by the Federal Government or State government, including any law referred to or described in section 62(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including parts of such law not explicitly referenced in such section but that relate to protecting individuals on any such basis; and
“(B) in which at least one party alleging a violation described in subparagraph (A) is one or more individuals (or their authorized representative), including one or more individuals seeking certification as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a comparable rule or provision of State law;
“(3) the term ‘consumer dispute’ means a dispute between—
“(A) one or more individuals who seek or acquire real or personal property, services (including services related to digital technology), securities or other investments, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes including an individual or individuals who seek certification as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a comparable rule or provision of State law; and
“(4) the term ‘employment dispute’ means a dispute between one or more individuals (or their authorized representative) and a person arising out of or related to the work relationship or prospective work relationship between them, including a dispute regarding the terms of or payment for, advertising of, recruiting for, referring of, arranging for, or discipline or discharge in connection with, such work, regardless of whether the individual is or would be classified as an employee or an independent contractor with respect to such work, and including a dispute arising under any law referred to or described in section 62(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including parts of such law not explicitly referenced in such section but that relate to protecting individuals on any such basis, and including a dispute in which an individual or individuals seek certification as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or as a collective action under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or a comparable rule or provision of State law;
“(5) the term ‘predispute arbitration agreement’ means an agreement to arbitrate a dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement; and
“(6) the term ‘predispute joint-action waiver’ means an agreement, whether or not part of a predispute arbitration agreement, that would prohibit, or waive the right of, one of the parties to the agreement to participate in a joint, class, or collective action in a judicial, arbitral, administrative, or other forum, concerning a dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement.
Ҥ 502. No validity or enforceability
“(a) In general.—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.
“(b) Applicability.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—An issue as to whether this chapter applies with respect to a dispute shall be determined under Federal law. The applicability of this chapter to an agreement to arbitrate and the validity and enforceability of an agreement to which this chapter applies shall be determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such agreement, and irrespective of whether the agreement purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.
“(2) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.—Nothing in this chapter shall apply to any arbitration provision in a contract between an employer and a labor organization or between labor organizations, except that no such 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.”.
(b) Technical and conforming amendments.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Title 9 of the United States Code is amended—
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after such date.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit the use of arbitration on a voluntary basis after the dispute arises.
Union Calendar No. 198 | |||||
| |||||
[Report No. 117–270] | |||||
A BILL | |||||
To amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration. | |||||
March 11, 2022 | |||||
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed |