Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, while racism and discrimination sometimes appear in overt forms, they can also manifest themselves in more subtle ways. One way is through discrimination based on natural hairstyles and hair textures associated with people of a particular race or national origin. This CROWN Act would make explicit that civil rights laws prohibit such discrimination. This is a matter of basic fairness and justice. This bill passed the House last Congress unanimously, and I hope we will do so again today. All the arguments we have heard about everything else are interesting and important but not relevant to this bill. This bill is purely about discrimination, purely about protecting people from discrimination, and we ought to pass it. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 979, I call up the bill (H.R. 963) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 963.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 963, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act, is critical legislation that would restore access to justice for millions of Americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that is often skewed in the company's favor over the individual. Private arbitration has been transformed, by 40 years of reckless Supreme Court decisions, from a voluntary forum for companies to resolve commercial disputes into a legal nightmare for millions of consumers, employees, and others who are forced into arbitration and are unable to enforce certain fundamental rights in court. By burying a forced arbitration clause deep in the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it consumer and employment contracts, companies can evade the court system, where plaintiffs have far greater legal protections, and hide wrongdoing behind a one-sided process that is tilted in their favor. For example, arbitration generally limits discovery; does not adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; can prohibit class actions, which it almost always does; and deny the right of appeal. Worse yet, arbitration allows the proceedings, and often even the results, to stay secret, thereby permitting companies to avoid public scrutiny of potential misconduct. For millions of workers and consumers, the precondition, whether they know it or not, of obtaining a basic service or product, such as a bank account, a cell phone, a credit card, or even a job, is that they must sign a nonnegotiable contract that includes a provision requiring all disputes to be resolved in private arbitration. These take-it-or-leave-it contracts, which were once clearly disfavored under the law, now seem to have been blessed by the Supreme Court as standard operating procedure in the corporate world. That means for millions of people, the ability to enforce consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights laws are subject to the whims of a private arbitrator, often selected by the companies themselves. These private arbitrators are not required to provide plaintiffs any of the fundamental protections guaranteed in the courts, and their further employment can depend on building a good reputation with the companies that hire them. Unsurprisingly, arbitration has become a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card many companies use to circumvent the basic rights of consumers and workers. The FAIR Act reverses this disastrous trend by prohibiting the enforcement of forced arbitration clauses in consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights disputes. Importantly, this legislation does not preclude both parties from agreeing to arbitrate a claim after a dispute arises. It does, however, protect unsuspecting consumers and employees from being forced to give up their right to seek justice in court. Last month, Congress came together in a bipartisan fashion to prohibit forced arbitration clauses in suits concerning sexual harassment and sexual assault. Watching that legislation be signed into law was a proud moment for many of us in this Chamber. This bill simply extends the same basic fairness in that bill to other workers and consumers. That bipartisan bill, which gathered, as I recall, about 130 Republican votes, is exactly the same as this bill, only limited in its application. Every argument for that bill is an argument for this bill. This bill simply extends the same basic fairness in that bill, as I said, to other workers and consumers. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for his leadership on this bill. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to correct something Mr. Bishop said. This bill does not ban arbitration. It bans forced arbitration. It bans the practice or the enforceability of the practice of having a provision in a contract that you sign to buy anything or an employment contract where you are forced, that is there and that if you try to change it, they won't sell you the car, they won't sell you the cell phone, they won't hire you, so you have no choice, and that forced arbitration removes the constitutional right to a trial by jury. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to point out that this bill does not ban arbitration. If two parties have a dispute and prefer arbitration to going to court, they can have arbitration. This bill bans forced arbitration, meaning arbitration that is entered into contracts that people have no ability to change. That is why it says pre-dispute arbitration agreements are struck by this bill, not post-dispute arbitration agreements. So this bill does not eliminate arbitration agreements if they want to. It does eliminate forced arbitration agreements that the party, usually the employee or the consumer had no knowledge of probably and no ability to say no to. We used to call them contracts of adhesion, but we don't do that anymore. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would significantly weaken this legislation and damage the collective bargaining process for tens of millions of working Americans. We have said it over and over again today--this bill is not designed to eliminate arbitration. While my Republican colleagues would like you to believe that the FAIR Act will end arbitration entirely, that is simply not true. The FAIR Act would put an end to forced arbitration--arbitration that is not willingly agreed to by both sides, which is a predatory one- sided practice created by and for huge corporations to allow them to get away with abusive conduct. It is a system that can exist only when these companies can take advantage of a stark power imbalance between themselves and workers, consumers, and small businesses. Labor unions correct that power imbalance. The collective bargaining process provides real protections that are unavailable to nonunion workers by forcing big businesses to compromise with skilled negotiators focused on improving terms for their workers. Collective bargaining guarantees other important protections in the arbitration process, such as truly neutral arbitrators, better procedures, transparent decisionmaking, and the option to appeal decisions. It creates a system that can actually resolve disputes quickly, efficiently--and most important--fairly for all parties involved. That is not forced arbitration precisely because it is truly voluntary. Arbitration only works when two parties of equal bargaining power can negotiate terms that work for everyone involved, which is exactly what happens when a labor union and a corporation establish a collective bargaining agreement. That is completely different than forced arbitration of nonunion employment disputes where an employee is forced to accept an arbitration clause that is buried deep inside the fine print of a stack of confusing paperwork on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that they must sign to get a job. The big corporations love this system because it forces their workers, it forces employees, it forces the purchasers of products to go to forced arbitration, and that is an inherently skewed process. That is why the employee loses 98 percent of the forced arbitrations. The employer wins 98 percent of the forced arbitrations. That is not a fair process. Moreover, as my colleague, Congressman Perlmutter, made clear during the Rules Committee meeting on this bill, nothing in the FAIR Act prevents individual workers from deciding to vindicate their rights before a jury. As the plain language of the bill states, no collectively bargained arbitration provision ``shall have the effect of waiving the right of a worker to seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under a provision of the Constitution of the United States, a State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public policy arising therefrom.'' In other words, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem that could upend the rights of millions of workers today. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to vote for the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, there are over 60 million workers--a majority of nonunion private-sector employees--who are subject to forced arbitration clauses. According to the Economic Policy Institute, that number will be over 80 million by 2024. Those employees are told that if they want to get a job or keep their current job they must sign away their right to their day in court and submit to a forced arbitration agreement. In most cases they do not have a choice. When these workers seek to hold their employers to account for wage theft, civil rights abuses, or racial discrimination, they are shoved into a secretive arbitration process designed by corporations with almost unlimited resources, and they lose 98 percent of the time. That is what the FAIR Act will fix. This legislation will restore these workers' access to our justice system and guarantee their constitutional rights by ending forced arbitration. This amendment would do nothing to protect workers while undermining this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary and harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, or the CROWN Act, is a critically important civil rights bill that would explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. It would do so in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race and national origin are already prohibited, such as employment, education, and housing. To be clear, it is my view that existing civil rights statutes already make such hair-based discrimination unlawful. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agrees, having issued guidance interpreting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit such discrimination as a form of race discrimination in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, some Federal courts have erroneously rejected this interpretation. The CROWN Act simply fixes these courts' misinterpretation of Federal civil rights law. This fix is urgently needed. According to a 2019 study conducted by the JOY Collective, Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for natural hair styles'' and other hairstyles traditionally associated with their race, like braids, locs, and twists. The study also found that 80 percent of Black women believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to fit in at the office and that they were 83 percent more likely to be judged harshly because of their looks. While this study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination, it is the people behind those numbers that make this legislation so vital. For example, a Texas student was told that he would not be able to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were too long; a Florida boy was turned away from his first day of school because his hair was too long; and a New Orleans-area girl was sent home from school for wearing braids. Similarly, numerous Black employees have been told to change their hair because it violated their employer's dress code. Some have even been denied employment altogether because of their hairstyles. In view of these disturbing facts, 14 States have enacted statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an individual's natural hairstyle--in every case with bipartisan support and sometimes even with the unanimous support of both parties. While I applaud these States for taking action, this is a matter of basic justice that demands a national solution by Congress. That is why I strongly support the CROWN Act. The House passed a nearly identical measure last Congress, and I hope that we will do so again today. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, for her leadership and for introducing this important bill this Congress. I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), sponsor of this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.