Forced Arbitration and the Case of Corporate Retaliation in Sexual Harassment Cases.

Tatiana Spottiswoode, a former employee of the technology company Afiniti, testified that she faced corporate retaliation in response to her complaint of sexual harassment against the founder, her employer, Zia Chishti.

Tatiana Spottiswoode, an employee of Afiniti, a technology company founded by Zia Chishti in the United States, testified before the House of Representatives, about her harrowing experience of sexual harassment. She reported being groomed before her employment, as her family knew the perpetrator. He went on to pressurize her into having a sexual relationship with him after she was hired at his company. This also resulted in a harrowing encounter of sexual violence where Ms. Spottiswoode was beaten, resulting in bruises, a black eye, and a concussion.

What is critical to note here is that Ms. Spottiswoode testified against the use of forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts issued by private organizations for staff. A forced arbitration clause in her contract made her give up her right to go to court or have a judge see her case after she was harmed by Chishti at Afiniti. Arbitration conducted within a closed corporate environment has no judge, jury, or right to appeal. Arbitrators do not even have to follow the law, as there is no ombudsman or legal overseer of any kind. Although arbitration is costlier than legal resolutions, it gives corporations greater leverage over the outcome of grievances filed against the company, particularly high-level grievances such as sexual harassment.

“Forced arbitration silences victims [of harassment] forever.” — Tatiana Spottiswoode.

Ms. Spottiswoode mentioned that Mr. Chishti used the forced arbitration clause within her employment contract to prevent her from seeking legal assistance following her assault. Instead, he used it to initiate a second arbitration — one that targeted not just Ms. Spottiswoode, but also her father, a family friend, and associate of Mr. Chishti, in retaliation. Although the arbiter ruled in favor of Ms. Spottiswoode in 2019, Mr. Chishti offered financial incentives, and the prospect of dropping his case, if the ruling was dropped.

In short, retaliation in corporate settings through the use of forced arbitration is made not just possible, but probable.

Retaliation is a tool utilized by predators to prevent victims from being able to seek legal recourse for their hurt. In this case, Afiniti enabled a predator to not just retaliate but do so in a manner that was demeaning and threatening to the very employment of the victim. This case is a tactic that is utilized to also punish and mitigate the resources that the victim has available to them in their case of reporting harassment.

Ms. Spottiswoode ended up leaving Afiniti. While this case was revealed to the public through this congressional hearing, it only resulted in the removal of Zia Chishti from Afiniti. Besides this, no further report has been made about whether or not the forced arbitration clause had been removed from employment contracts at Afiniti. No comment had been provided about the case of other victims, and their testimonies against Mr. Chishti, or other individuals, although another case was said to have been settled financially.