Recently, there have been reports in the news relating to the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution’s (CPR) Employment-Related Mass Claims Protocol (Protocol). We thought some background might be useful.
As more and more mass employment arbitration claims are filed around the United States, arbitral institutions have become increasingly aware of the tremendous challenges they face when trying to bring timely – and comprehensive – resolution to these claims. CPR responded to these challenges by borrowing techniques that had proved successful in the resolution of other mass claims and applied them to the employment space with the goal of facilitating a comprehensive resolution of mass employment claims for all parties involved. The result was the Protocol. In developing its Protocol, CPR was aware that, in order to be successful, it was imperative that the features of the Protocol be balanced and designed to facilitate global resolution.
As noted by former Southern District of New York district court judge, Shira Scheindlin, a veteran of mass claims matters, in connection with her appointment as the Administrative Arbitrator under the Protocol:
This protocol offers advantages, not only to claimants, whose cases will likely be resolved at the defendant’s cost and far more quickly than they would be in court, where mass claims often take years to resolve, but also to defendants, with the greater odds it offers of reaching a prompt global resolution in a more cost-effective manner than the courts would offer. And, most unusually, the defendant-employer will release an individual from mandatory arbitration if no global resolution is reached and the individual employee prefers a court proceeding to arbitration.
The terms of the Protocol itself speak to its innovative approach to facilitating resolution in the most efficient way possible. The initial phase of the Protocol provides for “test” arbitrations (10-20) to first proceed on an accelerated track followed by a mediation process that encourages resolution of all claims. If that process is unsuccessful in identifying a mediated solution, the Protocol allows claimants to opt-out of the entire arbitration process. Not only does this opt-out allow for employees to pursue their individual claims in court, but it also allows for the possibility that these claimants might, with court approval, be able to proceed collectively in a class action.
The objective of the initial phase of the Protocol is to resolve all the cases as a whole as quickly as possible. During this initial phase, the non-test cases are paused with all rights preserved in order to give the parties a chance to explore a global resolution. CPR believes that this procedure will actually encourage faster overall resolution of mass claims – especially when compared to the substantial delay that employees inevitably face while waiting for appointment of an arbitrator for, and the proceedings on, their claim when their claim is one of hundreds or thousands of mass arbitrations filed at the same time. If a mediated solution is reached, employees have the option of accepting that resolution or proceeding with individual arbitrations. In the case of individual arbitrations, each employee – and the employee alone – nominates the arbitrator from a Master List of arbitrators provided by CPR, and the employer pays all fees – including for the arbitrators, the mediator, and the administrator.
The Protocol gained attention in the press recently after DoorDash adopted the Protocol in agreements with its workers and a dispute arose as to where DoorDash should arbitrate its workers’ claims that had previously been filed before the AAA. In the context of that dispute in the case of Abernathy v. DoorDash, No.19-CV-07545 (N.D. Cal.), it has been suggested that CPR’s work on the Protocol may have been guided unfairly by counsel for Respondent DoorDash. CPR disagrees with this characterization.
As made plain by the discovery already undertaken of CPR in the Abernathy case, including a deposition of CPR’s President & CEO, it was CPR, not counsel for the employer, who conceived of, wrote and controlled the Protocol. This is underscored by the inclusion in the Protocol of the provision allowing claimants to opt out of the arbitration process and proceed in court – a provision disfavored by counsel for DoorDash. An examination of the Protocol itself shows that its provisions favor neither side; rather, the Protocol was intended to – and does – provide for an innovative and balanced solution for resolving mass employment claims for all parties involved.
With respect to interactions between CPR and counsel for DoorDash, the deposition testimony also discusses, as CPR previously explained in a letter to the Court dated December 12, 2019 (publicly available at Docket Entry 137), that counsel for the employer reached out to CPR last year to express concern over options for administration of a mass of claims and the fee structures being imposed and asked whether CPR could offer an alternative fee schedule for administering future arbitrations. Rather than just focusing on alternative fees, CPR took the opportunity to try and develop an innovative and fair process for resolving these claims for all parties involved. As a result, CPR developed the Protocol based on its own experiences in other mass claims areas. CPR then sought and considered input on the Protocol from a variety of sources, including counsel for DoorDash — who was contemplating applying the Protocol in future contracts with its workers. CPR sought input from labor and employment counsel with experience representing both management and employees on an individual and class basis, and attorneys with mass claims and complex commercial litigation and arbitration experience, some of whom are also prominent arbitrators and mediators, including one of the foremost experts in facilitating the resolution of mass claims. CPR also received input from particular members of its Board of Directors, who have served as advisors to ALI’s Restatement of Employment Law and who have chaired the New York Chief Judge’s Advisory Committee on Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution.
CPR developed the Protocol for the broader marketplace, not for any particular matter or party, and did so in the hopes that it would facilitate resolution and help solve for many of the challenges facing employees and employers dealing with mass individual employment arbitrations. We invite you to review the features of the Protocol for yourself. CPR believes its Protocol will allow for the efficient, fair and balanced administration of employment-related mass claims for both employees and employers.
CPR is an independent nonprofit organization formed in 1977 to, among other things, identify alternatives to litigation and ways to prevent and resolve legal conflicts more effectively and efficiently.
The CPR Institute is a think tank that has long brought leadership to the improvement of conflict management, as exemplified by work such as:
- The Model Rule for the Lawyer as a 3rd Party Neutral and the Provider Principles developed jointly with Georgetown University
- The Model Procedures for Mediation and Arbitration of Employment Disputes developed by a Committee of lawyers representing employees and employers as well as academics and neutrals
- CPR’s Master Guide to Mass Claims Facilities compiled by a Commission co-chaired by Kenneth Feinberg and Deborah Greenspan
- CPR’s book Cutting Edge Advances in Resolving Workplace Disputes published together with Cornell’s Scheinman Institute
CPR Dispute Resolution is a provider of dispute resolution services and will be administering the Employment Related Mass Claims Protocol to applicable arbitrations, along with its Panel of Distinguished Neutrals, who will be relied upon to mediate and arbitrate these claims.