Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.1 Nevertheless, forty-eight percent of African Americans and thirty-six percent of Hispanics have experienced race-based workplace discrimination.2 More than half of senior-level women say that they have been sexually harassed during their careers, with African American women facing an increased relative risk of sexual harassment in the workplace.3 JPMorgan Chase recognizes the importance of diversity, stating on its website that JPMorgan Chase is committed to maintaining a safe, productive, diverse, inclusive, professional, collegial and secure work environment in which all individuals are treated with respect and dignity.4 The company has also made an admirable $30 billion commitment to address the racial wealth divide, reduce systemic racism against Black and Latinx people and support employees.5 JPMorgan Chase requires its employees to agree to arbitrate employment-related claims. Mandatory arbitration may limit employees’ remedies for wrongdoing, reduce employees’ willingness to report discrimination6 , and prevent employees from learning about shared concerns. Arbitration may also enable discrimination, reduce workforce effectiveness, and create brand, legal, and human capital risks. Arbitration prevents class-action suits, which may allow companies with poorly implemented diversity, equity and inclusion policies to develop a sense of impunity. We are concerned that the widespread use of arbitration may signal that companies do not have full confidence in their own diversity programs and accountability systems. Investors’ concerns about arbitration’s potential to allow harassment and discrimination to go unseen remain pertinent to JPMorgan Chase, where serious allegations of racism and gender discrimination have been raised. Other companies have ceased to require employees to arbitrate discrimination claims. This includes Google, whose use of arbitration was identified as a key aspect of a culture of concealment in its $310 million misconduct settlement.7 FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, does not require arbitration of employment discrimination claims.8 In addition, several states have sought to remove or reduce forced arbitration of employee claims. Such states include California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington.9