The Case Of Nino V. The Jewelry Exchange

970 Words Mar 10th, 2015 4 Pages
In the case of Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange, there were allegations brought forth by Rajae Nino who felt he was discriminated against by his former employer, on the account of his gender and national origin. When he was employed with said employer, he was given a copy of the company’s employment contract by the human resources manager and instructed him to read it and sign it without affording him any opportunity to negotiate over its terms. With most discrimination cases, “the EEOC encourages the parties to discrimination charges to use mediation” (Walsh, p. 20), with this case the employer invoked an arbitration provision in Nino’s employment contract wherein the Court of Appeals decided the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. On the flip side, if the unconscionable terms were removed from the contract, the remainder of the employment contract could be enforced.
Additionally, when it comes to a contract being labeled as “unconscionable”, it relates to “the process of contract formation essentially involves a “take it or leave it” offer of an agreement drafted by a more powerful party (a “contract of adhesion”) and when the contents of the agreement unreasonably favor the more powerful party” (p. 22). With the term “procedurally unconscionable”, which is what Judge Fuentes pointed out Nino had no opportunity to negotiate with DI over the contract terms, DI was the stronger contractual party, and the arbitration agreement is thus…

More about The Case Of Nino V. The Jewelry Exchange

Open Document