[rprasad]

>What is the problem with arbitration?

The problem is that the company pays for the arbitor, who is usually an independent contractor hired on a per-arbitration basis. The arbitor is ecnomically pressured to side with the company, because siding against the company is likely not to result in repeat business. This effect is well-established and has been documented (I'll come back and post a reply with sources if I have the time).

Jury trials are a bad idea when the jury can't relate to the victim. Getting a fair jury is almost impossible in a sexual harassment case.

Getting a fair jury is not only possible, it's almost impossible not to get a fair jury for a civil trial. Sexual mores and attitudes have changed significantly over the past several decades, to the point where sexual harassment is no longer perceived as acceptable in the general workplace by either gender.

Note that in male-centric fields (sports, programming, etc.) attitudes toward sexual harassment have not changed as much as they have in more gender-balanced fields. This skewed perspective on sexual harassment has made more than a few plaintiff's lawyers quite wealthy.

[larrys]

"The arbitor is ecnomically pressured to side with the company, because siding against the company is likely not to result in repeat business."

Arbitrators are typically agreed upon by attorney's of both sides or specified by a neutral higher authority (judge etc.)

[ta12121]

Perhaps, but that does not disprove the quoted claim.

[tptacek]

Can companies reliably avoid discrimination lawsuits with binding arbitration clauses in employment contracts?