10.2190/62MN-78JM-1UTK-KWB7 62MN78JM1UTKKWB7 1 Designing a Legally Defensible Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr) Agreement 189 198 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 62MN78JM1UTKKWB7.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=62MN78JM1UTKKWB7 3 George W. Bohlander Robert J. Deeny Arizona State University Employment Attorney, Snell and Wilmer, Phoenix, Arizona Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures are viewed by employers and the courts as expedient and cost-effective devices for adjudicating employee complaints. With these professed benefits, ADRs have grown significantly among employers in both the public and private sectors. Unfortunately, recent court decisions have held that to be legally enforceable, ADRs must meet certain standards of law and judicial fairness. Included here are various procedural guarantees including rights of disclosure, employee representation, and fairness of relief. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the judicial requirements for effective ADR administration. Seven points are provided to ensure a legally defensible ADR agreement. Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 2 (1976). See Uniform Arbitration Act (Uniform Laws Ann.) (Supp. 1992 at 1) (Listing jurisdictions adopting the act). <i>Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson Lane Corp.</i>, 500 U.S. 20, 114 L.Ed. 3d 26, 111 S.Ct. 1647 (1991). <i>Kindd v. Equitable Life Assurance</i>, 32 F.3d 516 (11th Cir. 1994). <i>Bender v. Edwards</i>, 971 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992). <i>Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds</i>, 939 F.2d 305 (6th Cir. 1991). Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 107 (1991). <i>Long v. Burlington Northern Railroad</i>, 835 F.Supp. 1104 (D. Minn. 1993). <i>Nghiem v. NEC Electronic, Inc.</i>, 64 FEP 1669 (9th Cir. 1994). <i>EEOC v. River Oaks Imaging and Diagnostic</i>, 67 FEP CAS. 1243 (S.D. Tex. 1995). <i>Bentley's Luggage Corp.</i>, Case Number 12-CA-16658. <i>Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lai Viernes</i>, 42 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir. 1994). <i>Broemer v. Abortion Services</i>, 804 P.2d 1013, 126 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3 (Ariz. S. St. 1992). J. D. Garrison, Discovery in Employment Arbitration, <i>Dispute Resolution Journal, 50</i>:4, p. 16, October-December 1995. <i>First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan</i>, 131 L. Ed.2d 985, 115 S.Ct. 1920 (1995). <i>Ditto v. Remax Preferred Properties Inc.</i>, 108 N.C. App. 42 S.E.2d 335 (1992). <i>Bennish v. North Carolina Dance Theater, Inc.</i>, 108 N.C. App. 42 S.E.2d 335 (1992). <i>Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.</i>, 28 Cal. 3d 807, 820 (1981). <i>Olson v. American Arbitration Association, Inc.</i>, 10 I.E.R. CAS(BNA) 559 (N.E. Tex. 1995). <i>Alexander v. Gardner-Denver</i>, 415 U.S. 60 (1974). <i>Kinnebrew v. Gulf Insurance Co.</i>, 1994 U.S. District, Lexis 19982 (N.D. Tex. 1994). <i>Graham Oil Co. v. Arco Products</i>, 43 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1994). The American Arbitration Association has developed the California Employment Dispute Resolution Rules based on a study of the association's rules by the Northern California Employment Advisory Committee.