Read the text below and include specific references in the introduction to employment law (specific law, sentence, case, etc.) that support your answer.

" Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures The Changing Workplace There is great interest in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures in all areas of the law. Alternative dispute resolution procedures are alternatives to going to court to resolve disputes. Enthusiasm for ADR stems from the belief that these procedures are less expensive, quicker, more private, and less damaging to relationships than litigation. Two of the most frequently used types of ADR are mediation and arbitration. In mediation, a neutral third party (the mediator) facilitates negotiations between the disputing parties to help them reach an agreement but does not have the authority to decide the dispute or impose a settlement. In arbitration, a neutral third party (the arbitrator) functions more like a private judge. Arbitrators hear disputes and render decisions that are almost always final and binding on the parties. The EEOC encourages the parties to discrimination charges to use mediation. Rather than decide whether there has been a violation of the law, the mediator (a trained EEOC staff member or contractor) focuses on helping the parties jointly explore and reconcile their differences. Typically undertaken prior to EEOC investigation of a charge, mediation is voluntary and confidential. If it proves unsuccessful, the case reverts to the typical EEOC enforcement procedure of investigation, conciliation, and possible litigation. The EEOCs mediation program achieved a 69.4 percent settlement rate in fiscal year 2020, resolving discrimination charges in 6,272 of the 9,036 mediations conducted in that year.1 Cases that went through mediation in 2020 were resolved in an average of 147 days, compared to the average of over 200 days consumed by the EEOCs investigative process.2 It is likely that the mediation program was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in FY2020, as resolution rates in the low to mid-70s and resolutions in under 100 days have been more typical over the previous two decades. Arbitration has, for decades, been the principal means of enforcing employee rights under collective bargaining agreements in unionized workplaces. This use of arbitration essentially establishes, through collective bargaining, a private system for resolving disputes about violations of private contractual agreements. What has changed is that many nonunion employers are now requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment and arbitration is being used to resolve all employment law disputesnot simply contractual ones. To get (or keep) their jobs, employees have to surrender the ability to go to court to vindicate their rights as employees, and they have to do so prior to any disputes arising. The government does not compile official statistics on arbitration agreements. However, a relatively recent study based on a national survey of private sector businesses found that more than half (53.9 percent) of the surveyed establishments required their employees to arbitrate at least some kinds of disputes with them. Extrapolating from the survey results to the entire workforce, the researchers estimated that some 60 million workers no longer have access to the courts and are limited to using arbitration instead.4 repeat-player advantage for employers that fared better due to prior experience with the arbitration process and particular arbitrators.7 A critically important fact about arbitration is that the decisions of arbitrators are usually not appealable or subject to judicial review. Arbitrators decisions that, at least from the outside, appear to be egregiously unfair and wrong on the law nonetheless stand. As one case in point, emergency room physician Deborah Pierce filed a sex discrimination claim against the medical practice that terminated her.8 Under the arbitration agreement she had signed with the practice, her case was heard by Vasilios Kalogredis, a corporate attorney who also handles arbitrations. During the hearing, the practice withheld important evidence in the case and a female colleague reversed her previous testimony on behalf of Ms. Pierce after a conversation with male colleagues had clarified her recollection of events. Arbitrator Kalogredis ruled for the practice and his written decision contained large sections drawn verbatim from briefs filed by the medical practices lawyers. Ms. Pierce had no opportunity to challenge the proceeding. Instead, she was left with a $200,000 bill for legal costs. Overall, it is clear that the use of arbitration agreements with private sector, nonunion employees has increased substantially over the past several decades and is now fairly widespread. Whether the ability of employees to vindicate their rights is enhanced or diminished by the use of arbitration agreements is a disputed matter. One important study of the effects of arbitration agreements in employment found that cases were resolved considerably more quickly than in litigation, but that employee win rates and awards were lower than those found in some prior studies of litigation outcomes. Research has also provided evidence of arepeat-player advantage for employers that fared better due to prior experience with the arbitration process and particular arbitrators. A critically important fact about arbitration is that the decisions of arbitrators are usually not appealable or subject to judicial review. Arbitrators decisions that, at least from the outside, appear to be egregiously unfair and wrong on the law nonetheless stand. As one case in point, emergency room physician Deborah Pierce filed a sex discrimination claim against the medical practice that terminated her.8 Under the arbitration agreement she had signed with the practice, her case was heard by Vasilios Kalogredis, a corporate attorney who also handles arbitrations. During the hearing, the practice withheld important evidence in the case and a female colleague reversed her previous testimony on behalf of Ms. Pierce after a conversation with male colleagues had clarified her recollection of events. Arbitrator Kalogredis ruled for the practice and his written decision contained large sections drawn verbatim from briefs filed by the medical practices lawyers. Ms. Pierce had no opportunity to challenge the proceeding. Instead, she was left with a $200,000 bill for legal costs. Overall, it appears that the use of mandatory arbitration agreements disadvantages employees in many respects, although reliance on the courts has its own problems. The use of mandatory arbitration agreements by employers is now a firmly-established practice. But we may be seeing the beginnings of a counter-trend in which some employers are discarding their arbitration agreements due to political pressures, employee resistance, public image concerns, and practical problems that occur when large numbers of employees actually use the arbitration procedures (see Clippings). And in a rare display of bi-partisanship, Congress enacted legislation in February 2022 that prohibits employers from requiring that employees arbitrate cases involving sexual harassment or assault "

QUESTION

: A teacher was terminated and filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. While his case was pending, he moved to another state to care for his mother, who was in the final stages of Alzheimers disease. About six months after he had filed his charge, the EEOC sent him notice of his right to sue. The notice was sent to his previous address in Washington, D.C. On his EEOC intake form, the teacher had listed his former Washington, D.C., address, but had also written c/o (in care of) with his attorneys name and contact information. However, the teacher had not thought to contact the EEOC and provide it with his new out-of-state address. A copy of the right-to-sue letter was not sent to the attorney. When the attorney later contacted the EEOC for an update on the status of the teachers case, he was informed that the right-to-sue letter had been issued almost seven months earlier. The attorney then promptly filed suit in federal court, but the suit was dismissed as not timely. The teacher argued that the period for filing a discrimination suit should have been tolled because he was out of state to care for his mother and he reasonably believed that the EEOC would notify his attorney. On appeal, what should the court decide? Why?