Journal Article

Access vs Process in Employment Discrimination: Why ADR Suits the US but not the UK

Aaron Baker

in Industrial Law Journal

Published on behalf of The Industrial Law Society

Volume 31, issue 2, pages 113-134
Published in print June 2002 | ISSN: 0305-9332
Published online June 2002 | e-ISSN: 1464-3669 | DOI:
Access vs Process in Employment Discrimination: Why ADR Suits the US but not the UK

Show Summary Details


This article compares the legal systems for resolving employment discrimination claims in the US and the UK, with particular attention to court or tribunal procedures and the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques. The comparison reveals that the US system of bringing claims first to the investigative – but non‐adjudicative – Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and then to the US Federal Courts takes more time and money, but results often in higher compensation, than does the UK system involving conciliation by the Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service (ACAS) before resort to the Employment Tribunals. From this difference appears to follow a much greater enthusiasm, even desperation, for ADR in employment discrimination in the US than in the UK. This piece suggests that the UK may not need ADR, as the US clearly does, because of different overall approaches and attitudes to remediation of employment discrimination in the two countries.

Journal Article.  0 words. 

Subjects: Employment and Labour Law

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.