To effectively pursue claims, most employees rely on a lawyer who is willing to take charge of their case. While individuals can file claims without mandating a lawyer, few are willing to do so, and their success rates are much lower than those with legal representation. Nielsen et al. found that only 22.5 percent of employees who brought employment discrimination cases before the federal courts were unrepresented, and just over one-third of those employees were eventually replaced by a lawyer before the case was closed.53 to submit cases in this forum without legal representation. In practice, however, we find that only 21.1 per cent of labour cases are subject to compulsory arbitration by workers without legal assistance.54 While the possible action of the CFPB in the field of consumer finance contracts could have a major salutary effect, it is important to identify the limits of its competences. The CFP measures would not cover employment contracts. Nor does it extend to other types of consumer contracts. Therefore, while mandatory arbitration clauses could disappear from credit card agreements, they would still exist in contracts for restaurant employees, software purchase contracts, medical services contracts, uber driver agreements, and many other agreements that affect American consumers and workers on a daily basis. Mandatory arbitration procedures are not only a theoretical restriction of workers` and consumers` rights; it has a considerable practical impact on the ability of workers and consumers to assert their rights and win their business. It is difficult to know the practical implications of the broad delegation of dispute resolution by the courts to arbitration, given that arbitration is private and arbitral awards are generally not made public. However, surveys indicate that consumers and employees are less likely to win their business if they are tried in arbitration, and if they win, the amounts of damages are much lower than in a court.
. . .