The site navigation utilizes arrow, enter, escape, and space bar key commands. Left and right arrows move across top level links and expand / close menus in sub levels. Up and Down arrows will open main level menus and toggle through sub tier links. Enter and space open menus and escape closes them as well. Tab will move on to the next part of the site rather than go through menu items.
On the premise that "mandatory arbitration undermines the development of public law because there is inadequate transparency and inadequate judicial review," legislation has been reintroduced to impose a broad ban on pre-dispute arbitration agreements involving employment and consumer disputes. The Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 878/H.R. 1844), introduced by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), would only permit arbitration that is agreed to after the dispute arises, unless the arbitration provision is in a collective bargaining agreement. The bill's preamble states: “Mandatory arbitration can be a huge disadvantage to consumers, workers, and small businesses, often limiting their ability to have any meaningful legal recourse when they are wronged.” In a statement, Franken said, “I've reintroduced the Arbitration Fairness Act to ensure that people and small businesses maintain their right to their day in court when they are cheated.” There is no congressional action currently scheduled on the bill, and it is considered highly unlikely the measure will see action by the Republican House of Representatives.
Daniel V. Yager
Senior Advisor, Workplace Policy, HR Policy Association