The rise of employment arbitration in the wake of the Supreme Court's 1991 Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. decision has been accompanied by vigorous debates over the relative advantages or dangers of using arbitration to resolve statutory claims by employees. Advocates have advanced arguments for the relative speed, efficiency and fairness of employment arbitration. Critics of employment arbitration have raised concerns about due process protections, cost barriers, unfavorable outcomes for employees, and dangers of repeat player biases in favor of employers. Unfortunately, over the past decade and a half, the volume of arguments raised for and against employment arbitration have far outnumbered the pieces of empirical research bearing on these questions. However, over time there has been a gradual increase in the number of empirical studies of employment arbitration. These studies have featured a growing use of more sophisticated, rigorous methodologies that allow us to begin to answer some of the critical questions surrounding employment arbitration.