The entire Phoenix Suns organization is on the defensive. At least two men have sued the organization, both of whom say that current owner Mat Ishbia has prevented them from obtaining the records within. In the backdrop of these legal challenges, employees report feeling pressured to sign a new agreement that limits their rights as part of a larger handbook encompassing workplace policies and rules.
The Suns’ rulebook, which covers 63 pages, is split into two sections. Part A is 50 pages loaded with important issue areas. These are metrics such as diversity, equity, inclusion, respect in the workplace, employee benefits, and arena regulations. However, the contentious Part B consists of just four pages and is titled “Confidential Information, Intellectual Property, and Dispute Resolution Agreement.” Read on as this exclusive section breaks down the Suns’ mandatory arbitration process. Opponents claim it could mask the extent of systemic problems facing the department.
According to these sources, workers have only gotten three days’ notice to read and sign this new arrangement. Those who dissent are threatened with termination, presenting significant issues of employee free speech and company culture. Cortney Walters, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said this hostility, intimidation and pressure tactics are indicative of an endemic culture at ODOT.
“From the beginning, we have said we will hold the Phoenix Suns accountable for discrimination and retaliation. Instead of addressing these issues, the organization is pressuring employees to sign away their rights with only three days’ notice or risk losing their jobs.” – Cortney Walters
As Sun’s dispute resolution process, the Suns need confidential mediation. Many legal experts argue this practice strips people of their ability to ever get justice in a courtroom. Critics quickly condemn this tactic as both scary and diverting, arguing that it allows train systemic issues to fester in the dark.
“Mandatory arbitration denies people their day in court and hides systemic problems from the public. This latest move is not an isolated decision. It is part of a continuing pattern of silencing employees rather than confronting discrimination. The Suns’ actions make clear that protecting their image matters more to them than protecting people.” – Cortney Walters
Legal experts provide special insight into the growing trend of such arbitration policies as they’re deployed by other major organizations—including corporate behemoths Disney and ESPN. Stacey Mitch highlighted that “this policy does not result in the waiver of claims,” suggesting that while standard in corporate America, it may not always align with ethical practices regarding employee rights.
Patrick Hammon went into great detail on the subtleties of these arbitration agreements. He was troubled by the racially incendiary timing of the new terms being forced upon employees mid-contract.
“What makes this situation more unique is that it appears that these new terms are being imposed upon employees mid-stream. Courts in Arizona and elsewhere will almost always require such modifications to be supported by ‘consideration’—meaning the employees need to be getting something, anything, really in exchange for the change to the parties’ legal relationship.” – Patrick Hammon
Hammon likened this situation to an imaginary agreement between two neighbors, stressing the need for fairness in contract performance.
“Imagine having a year-long contract with a neighbor to mow your lawn or babysit your kids for $20 an hour; most would agree that it would feel unfair if, half-way through the year, that neighbor just decided on his or her own to increase that rate to $25/hour. To ensure that the party imposing such terms is doing so fairly, and not just taking advantage of the fact that the other side has grown to expect or rely on the other, courts will generally require that both sides get something during the modification.” – Patrick Hammon
Leave a Reply