No, this legislation is NOT commendable. Most defense contractors us arbitration clauses in their terms and conditions for one very reasonable and simple reason: protecting themselves from the extortion of exhorbitant legal lotto litigation. The arbitration clause does not necessarily prevent litigation later, but requires that any claims must go through arbitration first. You can't go straight to litigation lotto.
Why is this limited to only defense contractors? Arbitration is an entire genre of law introduced to our legal system to force management to reach a decision with unions. It is heavily used in union states. The basis of it is that management is not allowed to hire free labor when a dispute/strike between labor and management occurs. Basically, heads the union wins, tails the union wins. Its called union state rules.
So what’s the problem? Corporations can do what they want. It’s just that, as always, if they want Uncle Sam’s penny they must dance to Uncle Sam’s tune.
While I agree that litigation is misused and overused, the excerpt above, along with both of the following excerpts from a different article (link below) state that basically she signed away her right to seek civil damages. If we're relying on these articles to be accurate, then that is different from a requirement to first go to arbitration, and if not a satisfactory outcome, to litigation.
"Senator Al Franken pushed through an amendment on Tuesday that is designed to withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they prohibit their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.
After her safe return to the United States, she learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an "arbitration" process that would be conducted by KBR itself."
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212260731.shtml