拼車服務(wù)提供商Uber正在對處理性騷擾和性侵投訴的方式進行重大調(diào)整。

《華爾街日報》報道，該公司兩周前宣布，對于以遭到他人性騷擾或性侵為由提出投訴的員工或乘客，Uber將不再強制其接受仲裁。現(xiàn)在，聲稱自己遭到性騷擾或性侵的人可以起訴Uber。

強制性仲裁是企業(yè)界較為常見的做法。某些情況下，遭到員工投訴的公司會強迫其簽署表示自己接受仲裁的文件。這樣的仲裁采取閉門形式進行，處于公眾視線之外，而且其仲裁結(jié)果對公司而言通常會更加有利。在許多情況下，仲裁由公司方面操縱，以降低受到公眾抨擊的可能性。它還會削弱當事人公開講述被騷擾或被侵犯經(jīng)歷的能力。

這幾年，員工和乘客對Uber的性騷擾投訴一直居高不下。去年就有報道稱Uber前員工表示管理層對他們的性騷擾投訴置之不理，或是處置不利。也有聲稱遭到Uber司機性騷擾的乘客把其告上了法庭。

對部分人來說，Uber此舉已經(jīng)為時過晚。同時，出臺這項決定的背景是#MeToo等全球性運動，這些運動旨在解決并最終消滅女性在個人生活和職場上已經(jīng)和還會遇到的性騷擾和性侵問題。有些專家認為，仲裁是對當事人的懲罰。《華爾街日報》在該報道中采訪的一位專家表示，仲裁還會提高受害者找律師的難度，因為這種情況下律師賺到的錢通常較少。

Uber首席法務(wù)官托尼·韋斯特在題為《把燈打開》（Turning the lights on）的博客中探討了此項決定。韋斯特說該措施源于Uber的新準則： “我們要做正確的事，說到做到。”他還指出，雖然仲裁對公司和個人可能都有幫助，但Uber顯然已經(jīng)意識到當事人有訴諸法律的需要。

韋斯特寫道：“[我]們已經(jīng)認識到，讓受到性騷擾或性侵的當事人決定怎樣主張權(quán)利很重要。”他還說，除了公開訴訟和仲裁，當事人還可以選擇調(diào)解。

除了不再強制仲裁，Uber跟當事人和解時也不會簽下保密協(xié)議，從而禁止當事人公開談?wù)撓嚓P(guān)情況。

韋斯特在博客中稱：“[Uber的CEO] 達拉[·科斯羅薩西]最近表示，實施性侵者經(jīng)常尋找黑暗的角落，而我們向世界傳遞的信息是，我們需要把燈打開。”(財富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

Uber is making an important shift in how it handles sexual harassment and assault claims.

The ridesharing companyannounced that it will no longer force employees or riders who accuse another person of sexual harassment or assault into mandatory arbitration at two weeks ago, according to The Wall Street Journal. Now, those who say they have been sexually harassed or assaulted can sue Uber.

Mandatory arbitration is a relatively common practice in the corporate world. In some cases, companies force employees to sign a document that says they will engage in an arbitration if they bring a complaint against their employer. Arbitration is done behind closed doors and outside the view of the public. It also tends to result in cheaper settlements for companies. In many cases, it’s a one-sided maneuver by companies to limit their chances of facing public backlash. It also limits the survivor’s ability to speak publicly and openly about the harassment or assault he or she has endured.

Uber has had more than its fair share of sexual harassment claims over the years from both employees and riders. Last year, for instance, Uber was hit with reports from former employees that management was ignoring or not doing enough to address their claims of sexual harassment. Uber has also faced litigation from riders who say their drivers sexually assaulted them.

The Uber decision—while too late for some—comes against a backdrop of worldwide movements, like #MeToo, that aim at addressing and ultimately eliminating the sexual harassment and assault women have faced and continue to face both in their personal and professional lives. Arbitration is cited by some experts as a method for penalizing the survivors. An expert the Journal interviewed in its report said arbitration can also make it harder for victims to find attorneys because they generally make less in such cases.

In a blog post called “Turning the lights on,” Uber chief legal officer Tony West discussed the company’s decision. West said that Uber’s move is the result of a new corporate mantra called “We do the right thing, period.” He added that while arbitration can help both companies and individuals, Uber has apparently awoken to the need for survivors to have their day in court.

“[W]e have learned it’s important to give sexual assault and harassment survivors control of how they pursue their claims,” West wrote. He added that in addition to open court cases, survivors can also choose mediation in addition to arbitration.

In addition to the arbitration decision, Uber’s settlements with survivors will not include a confidentiality agreement that would have otherwise banned them from talking about the case’s facts in public.

“[CEO] Dara [Khosrowshahi] recently said that sexual predators often look for a dark corner,” West wrote in his post. “Our message to the world is that we need to turn the lights on.”