Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elaborate and explain.
- Waffles and Workers’ Rights (EEOC v. Waffle House, p. 84-85)
Read about arbitration law in Chapter 4 and Case 4-3 in your textbook, and do some online research on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Then discuss the following:
What is the EEOC’s role in regard to business? Does the court say that the EEOC trumps the arbitration contract between the employee and the employer? If so, why? What are the pros and cons of arbitration agreements? Do you think arbitration agreements between big companies and low wage earners who are uninformed about the law are truly fair? If you have any experiences at work with discrimination policies or EEOC trainings, share those experiences.
- Where in the World? J. McIntyre vs. Nicastro #6, p. 68
Read both the summary of the J. McIntyre v. Nicastro case on page 68 and the court’s full decision via the link provided. (You need only read up to the word “Reversed” and do not have to read the concurrence or the dissent – although you are welcome to do so! Summarize what factors the court looks at in determining where a case can be brought. What was the court’s final decision and do you think the decision was correct? Why or why not?
To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document.
The fact in issue in this case of J.McNTRE MACHINERY, LTD AND Robert NICASTRO is exclusive of jurisdiction, with reference to the decision of the supreme court of New J jersey. Iwould like to start the discussion by defining what is jurisdiction, jurisdictionis definedas the powerto declare the lawin the case SteelCo vs Citizensfor a Better Environment. In our case, the Supreme Court ofNew Jersey lackedthe power to listen tothis matter because itsjudgment lackedlegal validity and a clear enforcement mechanism becausethere was no lawon that land guidinghow such matter should be dealt with.
Moreover, the law should create order in societyand should exclusively guide all the activities in a certain region. Instituting a suit to Court that does not havejurisdiction to hear a certain matter creates a state of lawlessness and misunderstanding among the society and above all its abuse and breachof a fundamental principle the rule of law.
Please respond to these two post below in separate paragraphs:
1. Jessica Foley
Good evening class!
I chose to investigate the case of J. McIntyre vs. Nicastro. Nicastro had gotten a metal metal-shearing machine manufactured by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (J. McIntyre). the metal shearing machine caused an injury to Nacastro. He had filed a suit because of the faultiness of the machine. McIntyre and New Jersey were trying to figure out who got jurisdiction over the case because the injury happened in New Jersey, but the machine was built in England. McIntire did not sell his machines in New Jersey, there were a total of 3 machines, none of which weregild in New Jersey. Due to this, NewJersey took Jurisdiction over the case. Since McIntire did take the steps he was supposed, to ensure the safety his machines, Nicastro did not win the case. That being said, McIntire was told that he should be aware and prepared forsakes of his machine throughout all fifty states.
I think the decision was correct, because it sounds like somewhere throughout the line, someone got ahold of the machine and was not selling it through the proper channels. That being said, Nicastro should have known that the machine could have been faulted with and things could have been altered to cause the injury. I do think that McIntire should take moreprecautions like they said, and watch for things like this. So he does not take the fall in the future.
2. Mathew Dorwart
Hello class hope everyone is doing well!! I am hungry for some waffles anyone else?
The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) role in a business is to enforce federal laws to any business that discriminates against a job applicant or employee. I believe the court does say that the EEOC has some wiggle room or grey area that can overstep and trump the arbitration agreement that an employee has signed during or prior of employment. I believe this to be correct after reading the case EEOC v Waffle House as it states in Chapter 4 Case 4-3 that the statutory language is clear that the EEOC has the authority to pursue victim-specific relief regardless what the employee and the employer agreed on prior. When it comes to the agreements between big companies and low wage earners and do I think it is unfair. I truly do not for a couple reason. First, I feel the federal government put great control measure in when they created the EEOC in 1965. It is a place where anyone can get informed and know the rights and get great assistance and knowledge to understand what they are signing or not signing. Second we are in a society of google it. Being unaware anymore is a personal choice in my opinion. Big companies have rights and us poor people have rights and if you want to know what those are it is pretty close to a click away or a phone call but basically very easy to find out. It is fair to everyone as we all can get to the knowledge if we want. Knowledge is power. All I can say about discrimination polices is to know them and understand them as if you don’t deal with any and all situation correctly they can turn down that discrimination even if you had zero intent to discriminate. Like I said knowledge is power!! Now who is ready for some waffles??