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: Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: Participants and beneficiaries of employee benefit plans worldwide
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill affects all employees and retirees who are participants or beneficiaries of employee benefit plans.
- Mandatory arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and other waivers are common in employer-provided benefit plans globally.
- Employees and retirees in countries with employer benefit plans that use these provisions would be affected.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts employees and retirees involved in employer-sponsored benefit plans who have been subject to mandatory arbitration clauses and waivers.
- The budget constraints mean that the benefits distributed should align with the scope of policy enforcement and the population impacted within the United States.
- The estimated 150 million individuals potentially affected by this policy spans various demographics; thus, interviews need to cover a range of ages, occupations, and applicability of the policy.
- Some individuals, such as those in smaller companies that do not typically impose such clauses, may see no change, while larger corporations and their employees could experience significant effects.
Simulated Interviews
Corporate Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could greatly enhance the ability of employees to seek justice without being forced into arbitration.
- Arbitration often puts employees at a disadvantage due to cost and power imbalances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any policy that strengthens our rights as beneficiaries; it's about time these clauses were addressed.
- Though I'm retired, this policy seems like it would have been valuable during my working years.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems irrelevant to me because my company has never imposed these kinds of clauses.
- Good for those affected, I suppose, but it's not a priority for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Marketing Specialist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved to see policies like this come through, as I've felt stuck in unfair practices.
- Allowing class actions could empower us to rally together and push back.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Restaurant Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such policies protect employees from unreasonable clause impositions, which I think is fair.
- Our industry is vulnerable to exploitative practices, so I see value in these protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm unsure how this affects retirees, but any enhancement to employee rights is welcome.
- While I haven't personally faced such clauses, I've heard horror stories from others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Executive (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may complicate corporate legal strategies, affecting how we structure employee agreements.
- Although it feels inconvenient from a managerial standpoint, I understand the need for fair processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though currently not fully impacted, I support policies that prevent exploitation in the workplace.
- It's about time individuals can better hold companies accountable without unfair hurdles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Industrial Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need more policies that hold employers accountable. This is definitely a step in the right direction.
- It allows our union more leverage to negotiate better terms without forced arbitration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Human Resources Director (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will change the way we handle employee disputes, shifting more focus on fair practices.
- I foresee more oversight necessary in handling employee grievances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000000 (Low: $8000000000, High: $12000000000)
Year 2: $10200000000 (Low: $8160000000, High: $12240000000)
Year 3: $10404000000 (Low: $8323200000, High: $12484800000)
Year 5: $10824480000 (Low: $8659584000, High: $12989376000)
Year 10: $11824396800 (Low: $9459517440, High: $14189276160)
Year 100: $31926373210 (Low: $25541137368, High: $38311609052)
Key Considerations
- Litigation costs and savings balance for employers and employees.
- The potential increase in disputes processed through the court system.
- Impact on employer operating costs and employee morale.
- Potential reduction in corporate tax revenue due to increased litigation costs.