This article corrects:

  1. An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes Volume 8, Issue 1, 1–23, Article first published online: 17 February 2011

An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Volume 8 (Issue 1), 1–23

DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01200.x

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:

Table 3.  Outcomes for Repeat versus One-Shot Employers
 One-shot EmployerRepeat Employer
N = 367N = 845
  1. 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.

Employee win rate31.6%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.