Notes: Statistics reported are calculated from the AAA-CC Dataset of all employment arbitration cases based on employer-promulgated procedures administered by the American Arbitration Association during the period January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007. This dataset was assembled by the author from reports filed by the AAA under California Code arbitration service provider reporting requirements. Win rates and mean damage awards are calculated for all cases in which an award was issued. Significance levels: +p < .10, *p < .05 **p < .01, for differences between one-shot employer and repeat employer.
Article first published online: 12 MAY 2011
Copyright © 2011 Cornell Law School and Wiley Subscription Services, Inc.
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Volume 8, Issue 2, page 448, June 2011
How to Cite
(2011), Corrigendum. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8: 448. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01215.x
- Issue published online: 12 MAY 2011
- Article first published online: 12 MAY 2011
Vol. 8, Issue 1, 1–23, Article first published online: 17 FEB 2011
An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Volume 8 (Issue 1), 1–23
In table 3 on page 13 of the article, the numbers ‘$40,546’ and ‘$16,134’ appeared in the wrong cells in the table. We have fixed this error in the online version of the article.
The corrected version of table 3 appears below:
|One-shot Employer||Repeat Employer|
|N = 367||N = 845|
|Employee win rate||31.6%||16.9%**|
|Mean damage awards (inc. zeros)||$40,546||$16,134**|
The text of the article describes the data correctly and so does not need to be changed.
We regret any inconvenience caused by this error.