Congress Limits Arbitration of Employment Disputes by Defense Contractors and Subcontractors
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.23.09
On December 22, President Obama signed into law the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326). The spending bill includes a significant amendment, offered by Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, prohibiting certain government contractors from entering into or enforcing arbitration clauses in employment agreements.
The amendment, Section 8116 of the Act, specifies two conditions for receipt of contracts in excess of $1 million from "funds appropriated . . . by this Act." First, defense contractors and other entities receiving funds pursuant to the DoD Appropriations Act must, as a condition of receiving such funds, refrain from entering into any agreement with their employees or independent contractors that contains a mandatory arbitration clause for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or for certain torts related to sexual assault or harassment. Second, such contractors must refrain from enforcing such arbitration provisions in existing employment agreements. In addition, in 180 days, covered contractors will be required to certify that any subcontractor holding subcontracts in excess of $1 million has agreed to abide by these restrictions.
Approval of the DoD Appropriations Act with Senator Franken's amendment may be just the first volley in a broader Congressional battle over mandatory arbitration of employment disputes. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 is pending before the Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and the House. The Act, introduced in the House by Rep. Johnson of Georgia and in the Senate by Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin, would dramatically revise the Federal Arbitration Act by prohibiting the enforcement of nearly all pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate employment, civil rights, franchise, or consumer matters. All employers who are utilizing, or are considering moving to, mandatory arbitration of employment disputes have a stake in the battle that will resume in 2010.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
