DoD Extends Prohibition on Certain Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

The Department of Defense (DoD) will issue a final rule (pdf) that extends the existing restrictions on a contractor’s use of mandatory arbitration agreements in certain instances. Currently, a provision in the DoD and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act bans contractors or subcontractors at any tier that receive funds appropriated by the Act for a contract in excess of $1 million from enforcing mandatory, pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate “any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” This restriction does not apply to a contractor’s or subcontractor’s agreement with employees or independent contractors that cannot be enforced in the U.S., nor does it apply to the acquisition of commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items. The Secretary of Defense is permitted to waive the applicability of this prohibition to a particular contract or subcontract in the interest of national security.

The final rule extends the arbitration restrictions to large contracts awarded with funds provided under the DoD appropriations act for the year 2011 and subsequent DoD appropriations acts. A final rule implementing these restrictions for funds awarded by the 2010 DoD Appropriations Act was issued in December 2010. The final rule states that: “Since DoD anticipates that this will be an ongoing requirement, this rule applies to use of all subsequent fiscal year funds appropriated or otherwise made available under subsequent DoD appropriations acts.” If the restriction is removed at a future date, DoD notes that it will amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations accordingly.

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.