Can you sue for wrongful termination if you get fired for refusing to sign such a waiver?
I've tried to make such arguments on behalf of terminated employees in federal district courts in the Fifth Circuit, but have not been successful to date.
But some courts have held that a demand to arbitrate or be fired, and then firing the employee for refusing to sign, is unlawful retaliation when there is a pending claim. See, e.g., Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1267-1268 (11th Cir. Ala. 2008):
The main issue in this appeal is whether Bagby Elevator Company was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Greg Goldsmith's claim of retaliation when it is undisputed that Goldsmith's employment was terminated based on his refusal to sign a dispute resolution agreement that applied to his charge of racial discrimination pending with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Bagby Elevator appeals a jury verdict that awarded compensatory and punitive damages to Goldsmith based on his complaint of both racial discrimination and retaliation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. In Weeks v. Harden Manufacturing [1268] Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2002), we ruled that a refusal to sign an arbitration agreement was not a protected activity that could support a claim of retaliation, but we did not address an employee's refusal to sign an agreement that applied to a pending charge of discrimination. Goldsmith was willing to execute an amended dispute resolution agreement that would not have applied to his pending charge, but Bagby Elevator insisted that Goldsmith sign an agreement that applied to the pending charge and fired him immediately after he refused to do so. We conclude that Bagby Elevator was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Goldsmith's claim of retaliation because there was sufficient evidence of a causal relation between the filing of his pending charge and later termination. As a result, we need not decide any issue about the verdict regarding Goldsmith's alternative claim that he was terminated based on his race.
It seems unlikely, because the Supreme Court has ruled it's permissible for employers to compel employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.
I mean honestly I think this is ideologically motivated just like the rash of decisions that have practically made it impossible to file a class action lawsuit by letting companies require their customers to use arbitration.
Unless you subscribe to the Marxist doctrine that every economic interaction is "really" a question of one party having power over the other, which is delusional like the rest of Marxism.