The Case Of Nino V. The Jewelry Exchange Essay

In the United States, companies of all shapes and sizes must adhere to nondiscrimination policies and practices that prohibits against any and all various types of conduct based on certain characteristics when it comes to the hire, fire, and relationship with their employees (Canas & Sondak, 2014). As a member of the workforce, we would hope and assume that we wouldn’t have to deal with discrimination anymore. Don’t get me wrong, our country has grown so much over the years when it comes to tackling discrimination in the workplace. It’s just unfortunate that it’s just not natural for organizations and companies to naturally be ethical and moral when it comes to their treatment of their potential applicants or current employees. There are still cases of discrimination currently in our society. It may not be as severe compared to before the modern civil rights era, but discrimination still does exist. With all due respect, an adequate amount of the laws are simple and are able to be understood easily but at the same time, there are other parts of discrimination and harassment laws that can be more difficult for one to understand and are more open to one’s interpretation (Canas & Sondak, 2014). One example of a recent discrimination case is of Calibuso et al V. Bank of America Corp. et al.

In 2010, Ellen Pao (a woman, who according to Slate magazine is educated in business, law and engineering) filed a discrimination suit against her employer, Kleiner Perkins. In 2015, after a trial that lasted nearly one month, the jury found in favor of Kleiner Perkins. Although this wasn’t the outcome that people had hoped for, many believed that the case represented an important moment for professional women: Despite Pao’s loss, the public’s awareness of the discrimination women face in male dominated environments had increased as a result of her public pursuit.

After watching the video entitled “24 days in Brooks”, it is apparent that if a First Contract Arbitration had been in place; this emotionally charged situation may have been avoided. This paper is to examine the merits of having a First Contract Arbitration to be put in place within the Alberta Labour Code. Also, I will discuss the background of the Lakeside Packers dispute, my perspective on what employee, employer and state believe are their stances on First Contract Arbitration and how they would be affected. Also, some

The EEOC’s role in this lawsuit was to hold the employer accountable for benefiting from modern day enslavement so that companies could be aware of the ramifications of conducting such business. The EEOC first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement, and then filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. After no success, the EEOC quickly filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii and the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Washington.

The case of EEOC v. Mesa Sys., Inc., D. Utah, No. 11-1201 states the EEOC is claiming that the Mesa Systems discriminated against a group of employees for using a language other than English in their positions of employment that did not require English only, the employees were given jobs with bad conditions, it was a hostile work environment, and those that complained were treated with retaliation for their behavior and the use of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In 2001, The United States Supreme Court has decided that the Federal Arbitration Act applies broadly to employment contracts, since that time usage of forced arbitration agreements by employers significantly increased. There are several reasons why the arbitration agreement on employment contract is legally enforceable. First of all, when the agreement reflected on the promise, which has valid offer, acceptance, and consideration, between employer and employee, it can be considered as a legally enforceable contract. Thus, the contract shouldn’t be involved in lack of capacity, voluntary consent, and illegality. In fact, customer or employee give up their rights to potential legal action in exchange for a job, product, or a service. Consequently,

Despite the harmonious nature of Japanese people, there are still conflicts that cannot be resolved within the enterprise union and the firm. Most of these unresolved conflicts occur because many firms are conducting restructuring and retrenchment during this period of economic uncertainty. When these conflicts happen, they can approach the local government mediation body to help conciliate and make a decision. Most decisions made are generally accepted; however, should the conflicts still exist, they can opt for arbitration in the Labour Tribunal System, or legislation in court. For arbitration, the judges involved are tripartite in nature: 1 professional judge, 1 union representative and 1 employer representative. All 3 judges must have professional knowledge and experience in labour issues, and there are no more than 3 hearings, verdict based on majority. If the verdict is rejected by either party, they may proceed to legislation (Elbo 2004).

The purpose of this assignment is two-fold: (1) analyze a scenario in which an employee wishes to file a discrimination complaint against his/her private sector organization and (2) explain the civil litigation process for such a claim. "Litigation refers to the process by which cases are brought and prosecuted in the court system" (Legal Advice for Free, 2005a). In the case of a discrimination suit, the civil litigation process begins with filing the complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and, if necessary, proceeds from the state level up to the United States Supreme Court.

The use of mandatory arbitration provisions under California law has been the subject of much debate and litigation in recent years. As applied to employment contracts, these clauses compel employees to waive their rights to a jury trial for a variety of employment-related disputes, including wage violations, wrongful termination and harassment. In larger businesses with many employees, an arbitration provision may also require employees to relinquish the right to initiate a class action lawsuit. But there are limited circumstances where a court may find that an arbitration clause is not enforceable and permit employees to proceed with an action in court. This occurs when the court finds unconscionability in the contract; that is, the terms of the contract are so inequitable and harsh as to render the arbitration invalid.

From the worker's point of view, arbitration may not be as compelling as their day in court. Many large corporations require their workers and consumers to sign employment contracts containing mandatory arbitrations as part of their employment policies (Stone & Colvin, 2015). Companies, such as Anheuser-Busch, utilize a dispute resolution process which helps to resolve conflicts before they even go to arbitration. Not only is the dispute resolution process effective, but fewer cases go to arbitration at all. Employees who are represented by a union will often have the union to request the mediation. Employees may use arbitrators if they feel they have been treated unfairly. Arbitration gives the opportunity for the employee and company to make their cases using a third party to present a written decision. The decision is often binding and cannot be taken to court. In some companies, the arbitration contracts can be non-binding, but this is a rare case.

A recent Supreme Court case holds the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accountable for making good faith settlement efforts. The EEOC files hundreds of suits each year to enforce Title VII, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), since some discriminatory acts are unfortunately common practice. Thus, a Supreme Court ruling increasing oversight of the commission and requiring additional steps before filing a lawsuit is an example of judicial review because as the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court’s ruling overruled the lower courts’

Arbitration agreements can be beneficial for an employer yet complicated at times. Employees use arbitration agreements in the sense to find a resolution in an employment law claim without going through the court system (Walsh, 2013). Depending on the case this can have a negative outcome for the employer if the employee tries to get out of the agreement which will cost high amounts to go to trial. However, if the employer implements the arbitration agreement it decreases fees for trails and time to prepare, its quicker than the other methods to resolve problems, and instead of being in the public eye like trails are can create privacy for the employer (Pivateau, 2012). Making sure the employer explains exactly what the employee is signing

Did Al have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker and his bag? Did Al experience intrusion upon seclusion? Does have a claim under intentional infliction of emotional distress? Did Al experience false imprisonment? Is Al protected under the Weingarten rights?

According to Hofmann (2003), for the best interest of the employer, it is a great ideal to use an arbitration agreement because in the long run it will save the employer money and time. Therefore, arbitration agreements may be a simpler and easier way but this agreement only benefits the employer; the employee is the one that may suffer a significant lost. Henceforth, it is belief by the writer that an employee should be informed at the time of employment if there is an arbitration agreement present. The employee deserves to know that in the case of unfair treatment they will not have their rights and obligations met.

One example that the contract that Nino signed that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable can be accessed in Article IV of the contract. Article IV was described as “the sole, final, binding and