IS LITIGATION YOUR FINAL ANSWER? 713
more than four years before the agency issues a final
investigatory determination.^222 Fortunately, many state
employment agencies have readily available ADR processes to
help resolve these claims at an early stage.^223 Accordingly, using
these existing ADR procedures to resolve workplace-bullying
claims is equally viable. Furthermore, state employment
agencies could share this added burden with court-connected
ADR programs or by contracting nonprofit ADR
organizations.^224 Therefore, the Healthy Workplace Bill could
encourage a more cost-effective and efficient resolution of
workplace-bullying claims by utilizing existing state-level ADR
programs. Given the lengthy investigatory procedures of state
employment agencies, it is even more important that the Bill
maximizes ADR procedures to resolve disputes.^
V. STATE-LEVEL ARBITRATION IN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES
Depending on the factual situation, Targets may prefer to use
arbitration to resolve their workplace-bullying conflict if they
believe that mediation would not generate a satisfactory
resolution, or if the bully and employer are particularly hostile
to finding a collaborative solution. While in some circumstances,
Targets may prefer litigating a case, they nonetheless should be
provided with the opportunity to pursue a less formal and costly
process through arbitration. Currently, many workplace-related
disputes are resolved through arbitration under mandatory
arbitration clauses of employment contracts.^225 Although
(^222) Id. at 30–31.
(^223) For example, Indiana’s Civil Rights Commission and Colorado’s Civil
Rights Division have Alternative Dispute Resolution Units that mediate
employment discrimination claims. See Alternative Dispute
Resolution/Mediation, COLO. DIV. OF CIVIL RIGHTS, http://www.colorado
.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=DORA-DCR%2FDORALayout&
cid=1251629148334&pagename=CBONWrapper (last visited Apr. 6, 2013);
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), IND. CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N,
http://www.in.gov/icrc/2386.htm (last visited Apr. 6, 2013).
(^224) For a discussion of court-connected and private arbitration programs,
see infra Part V.A.
(^225) See Nicole Karas, Note, EEOC v. Luce and the Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement, 53 DEPAUL L. REV. 67, 71–73 (2003); Sullivan,