In this Article, we use evidence gathered from employment arbitration cases arising in the securities industry to address several research questions that emanate from the debate over the arbitration of employment disputes. We empirically answer the following questions: (1) Are critics correct in asserting that employment arbitration favors repeat players? (2) Do employees fare better under voluntary arbitration than they do under mandatory arbitration? (3) Are employees who allege violations of their civil rights, through the filing of discrimination charges, treated differently from those filing other types of claims? (4) Does the gender of the parties involved in the arbitration process affect outcomes in any way? (5) Is there evidence that companies learn from, or are affected by, the results of prior arbitration awards when dealing with a current claim? Although the literature has offered some answers to these questions, this Article provides a holistic review and overview of the arbitration experience within the securities industry and a summation of quantitative evidence on the subject.