HR-5115-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Michael Lawler (R-NY)
What it does
This bill would amend the Federal Arbitration Act (Title 9 of the U.S. Code) to make predispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers unenforceable in cases involving age discrimination against workers or individuals aged 40 or older. The person alleging age discrimination would have the choice — not the employer or other party — of whether to invoke this protection. Courts, not arbitrators, would decide whether the law applies to a given dispute. The bill would apply to claims arising on or after its enactment date and covers disputes under federal, tribal, and state law.
Who benefits
Workers aged 40 and older who have signed mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment and later face age discrimination — they would regain the right to sue in court or join class/collective actions. Plaintiffs' employment attorneys who would gain access to jury trials and broader discovery. Civil rights advocacy organizations focused on age discrimination enforcement. Older job applicants who allege discriminatory hiring practices. Retirees with age-related claims against former employers.
Who is hurt
Employers — particularly large corporations and staffing firms — that rely on arbitration clauses to manage litigation costs and exposure. Arbitration service providers (e.g., AAA, JAMS) that would lose a category of cases. Businesses that argue arbitration produces faster, lower-cost resolution for both parties. Younger workers and employees under 40 who are not covered and would remain subject to predispute arbitration agreements for age-related claims. Employers in states with broader age discrimination protections who may face increased class action exposure.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mandatory arbitration clauses systematically disadvantage older workers by forcing disputes into private proceedings with limited discovery, no jury, and confidential outcomes that prevent accountability. They contend that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was designed to provide robust public enforcement, and that predispute waivers — often buried in employment contracts — effectively strip workers of congressionally granted rights before any dispute arises. This bill follows the model of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (2022), which applied the same approach to sexual misconduct claims and passed with broad bipartisan support.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that arbitration is a legitimate, congressionally sanctioned dispute resolution mechanism upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court under the Federal Arbitration Act, and that singling out age discrimination claims creates an inconsistent patchwork of arbitration rules. They contend that arbitration often resolves disputes faster and at lower cost than litigation, and that empirical evidence on whether plaintiffs fare better in court versus arbitration is mixed. Critics also argue the bill could increase frivolous litigation by removing the cost-containment function of arbitration, ultimately raising employment costs and discouraging hiring of older workers — the opposite of the bill's intent.