Industry knows damn well that forced arbitration is unfair

Isn't that why the HR director at Wells Fargo, in explaining why his company was getting rid of forced arbitration of sexual-harassment claims, observed that "Wells Fargo has zero tolerance for sexual harassment"?

So, for really bad stuff, it's only fair to let people go to court. Is that it?

Does the company tolerate just plain-old race and sex discrimination in pay or job opportunities, without the harassment? Or other workplace illegalities? Or what about data theft? Or illegal lending practices? Does Wells Fargo "tolerate" all of that? After all, the company still tries to keep people out of court on disputes over those things.

It's great that people claiming sexual harassment against Wells Fargo will now be able to sue, and perhaps this move will spur other companies to reverse course on forced arbitration. But Wells Fargo's move, and the reasons given for it, reveal that industry knows that forced arbitration is both wrong and an assertion of brute legal force, nothing more.