722 JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY
arbitration programs to resolve the dispute.^278 Otherwise, if
damages are valued at more than $50,000, Targets can still elect
to pursue arbitration with nonprofit organizations.^279 Those with
fewer resources and who want to move past the conflict as
quickly as possible should only choose to file suit as a last resort
given the costs associated with litigation. Moreover, nonprofit
arbitration organizations are widely available to provide
impartial proceedings at affordable rates. Finally, procedural
safeguards in state arbitration statutes exist to protect Targets
from an abuse of due process in proceedings. In the event that a
bully or employer refuses to utilize arbitration, Targets are still
afforded a private right of action under the Healthy Workplace
Bill.
VI. CONCLUSION
Workplace bullying is a real and serious problem affecting
millions of workers.^280 It is therefore crucial that the Healthy
Workplace Bill be passed into law. Adding an ADR provision to
the Bill would ease state legislators’ and opponents’ concerns
about plaintiffs “flooding” courts with frivolous claims and
exposing employers to unlimited liability. Since workplace-
bullying incidents are very fact-specific,^281 allowing both
litigation and ADR procedures as potential avenues of relief will
give Targets and employers more flexibility to resolve disputes.
Mediation and arbitration could resolve disputes quickly and
with less expense, which is important for most employees and
for small employers with fewer resources. Parties who pursue
ADR would also reduce the likelihood that state court dockets
become overloaded with workplace bullying claims.^282 To
address workplace-bullying claims through ADR processes,
states could utilize existing institutions and programs, such as
private ADR organizations, the state labor department, or court-
(^278) See supra note 229.
(^279) See supra Part V.A.
(^280) See supra Part II.
(^281) See supra Part II.
(^282) See supra Part IV.