Bill Overview
Title: Employee and Retiree Access to Justice Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits employers from including certain mandatory arbitration clauses, class action waivers, representation waivers, or discretionary clauses in employee benefit plans. It also prohibits these provisions from being enforced with respect to claims brought by plan participants or beneficiaries.
Sponsors: Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-11]
Target Audience
Population: Employees and retirees involved in employer-sponsored benefit plans
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill impacts those engaged in employer-employee relationships, particularly focusing on employee benefit plans.
- Approximately 157 million people were employed in the U.S. as of recent statistics, making employees a large target group.
- Most employees are covered by some form of employee benefit plan which could include retirement, health, or other welfare benefits.
- Globally, employment figures are significantly higher, encompassing various work practices and benefits arrangements.
- The prohibition on certain clauses affects both current employees and retirees as potential claimants under benefit plans.
Reasoning
- The target population includes millions of U.S. employees and retirees involved in employer-sponsored benefit plans, potentially impacted by provisions in those plans.
- A significant portion of the employed population is engaged in employer-sponsored benefit plans, the specifics of which can affect their rights concerning claims and dispute resolution.
- This policy empowers individuals by restricting mandatory arbitration clauses, which may enhance their ability to pursue claims, positively affecting their perceived wellbeing.
- The policy will directly impact individuals who have disputes or claims related to their benefit plans, increasing their satisfaction and reducing perceived coercion by employers.
Simulated Interviews
teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy is empowering as it allows teachers like me more freedom to contest unfair benefit decisions without being forced into arbitration.
- It reduces the risk of losing disputes due to imbalance of power in the current system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
software engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel that this policy will provide more protection and fairness to employees like me who may need to address grievances through legal action rather than arbitration.
- Arbitration often felt like an uphill battle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree, I believe that having an option to not be forced into arbitration will help me if there are any disputes involving my pension or health benefits.
- This gives me more peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
financial analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know I have more control over how disputes related to my benefits will be handled.
- Having arbitration out of the way could encourage fairer resolutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
HR manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is necessary to ensure fairness in resolving disputes, but it does raise questions about increased legal costs that the company might face.
- It's a delicate balance between protection and cost efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
restaurant manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing arbitration clauses might result in more disputes going to court, which could be costly, but it ensures fairness for employees.
- It's a trade-off that I think is worth debating.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing I can take any disputes to court instead of arbitration makes me feel more secure about my working conditions and benefits.
- It's a positive change for those in challenging situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
manufacturing worker (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The shift away from mandatory arbitration clauses means I can feel more confident about pursuing claims about my benefits if necessary.
- It's an improvement in our rights as workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
executive director of a non-profit (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing these clauses could level the field, but I'm concerned about how these changes might raise litigation costs for non-profits.
- It's a double-edged sword for directors like myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
retired engineer (Orlando, FL)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having the option to avoid mandatory arbitration gives me peace of mind that I'll have a fair shot in disputes involving my pension.
- It's a critical protection for retirees relying on fixed incomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $3100000, High: $7200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $3200000, High: $7400000)
Year 5: $6000000 (Low: $3500000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $7500000 (Low: $4000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- While initial costs may rise due to more litigation, long-term costs might stabilize or reduce due to improved employment practices.
- Evaluation of indirect effects on company practices and employee satisfaction is crucial as they can significantly impact cost-benefit analysis.
- Monitoring and assessment mechanisms must be in place to gauge the impact of arbitration clause prohibitions.