From the beginning of the "silent ADR revolution" in the 1970s, conflict management scholars have implied that ADR has the capacity to resolve workplace conflicts short of litigation. Yet the Gilmer decision gave firms two strategies for managing workplace disputes: (1) use arbitration to limit the costs associated with litigating workplace claims, or (2) use "conflict management systems" to control the escalation of these claims within the workplace. While many firms employ both strategies, they are rooted in different philosophies of workplace conflicts resolution. The first strategy focuses on "distributive" ADR and is indifferent to repairing the employment relationship. The second method focuses on so-called "win-win" ADR techniques that attempt to find solutions to workplace conflicts that benefit both employers and employees. This thesis provides cross-industry empirical data comparing if both of these strategies are able to influence the number of FLSA and employment discrimination claims filed against Fortune 1000 firms.