Waffles and Workers’ Rights (EEOC v. Waffle House) https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/new
ID: 360944 • Letter: W
Question
Waffles and Workers’ Rights (EEOC v. Waffle House)
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-15-02.cfm
Read about arbitration law, 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.
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?
Explanation / Answer
yes, the court says that an arbitration contract happens between employer and employee. the benefits of arbitration agreements are as follows:
Avoids hostility. Because the parties in an arbitration are usually encouraged to participate fully and sometimes even to help structure the resolution, they are often more likely to work together peaceably rather than escalate their angst and hostility toward one another, as is often the case in litigation.
Usually cheaper than litigation. Arbitration is becoming more costly as more entrenched and more experienced lawyers take up the cause. It is not unusual, for example, for a well-known arbitrator to charge $3,000 to $4,000 per day for his or her services. And most parties in arbitrations will also hire lawyers to help them through the process, adding to their costs. Still, resolving a case through arbitration is usually far less costly than proceeding through litigation because the process is quicker and generally less complicated than a court proceeding.
Faster than litigation. According to a recent study by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, the average time from filing to decision was about 475 days in an arbitrated case, while a similar case took from 18 months to three years to wend its way through the courts.
Flexible. Unlike trials, which must be worked into overcrowded court calendars, arbitration hearings can usually be scheduled around the needs and availabilities of those involved, including weekends and evenings.
Simplified rules of evidence and procedure. The often convoluted rules of evidence and procedure do not apply in arbitration proceedings -- making them less stilted and more easily adapted to the needs of those involved. Importantly, arbitration dispenses with the procedure called discovery that involves taking and answering interrogatories, depositions, and requests to produce documents -- often derided as a delaying and game-playing tactic of litigation. In arbitrations, most matters, such as who will be called as a witness and what documents must be produced, are handled with a simple phone call.
Private. Arbitration proceedings are generally held in private. And parties sometimes agree to keep the proceedings and terms of the final resolution confidential. Both of these safeguards can be a boon if the subject matter of the dispute might cause some embarrassment or reveal private information, such as a company's client list.
demirts of arbitration contracts:
Limited recourse. A final decision is hard to shake. If the arbitrator's award is unfair or illogical, a consumer may well be stuck with it and barred forever from airing the underlying claim in court.
Uneven playing field. Some are concerned that the "take-it-or-leave-it" nature of many arbitration clauses work in favor of a large employer or manufacturer when challenged by an employee or consumer who has shallower pockets and less power.
Most retailers -- car dealers are repeat offenders here -- do not mention the arbitration clause before requiring the customer to sign the purchase agreement. Or they will wait until you are ready to drive the car off the lot, then casually mention that they won't sell unless you sign.
Questionable objectivity. Another concern is that the process of choosing an arbitrator is not an objective one, particularly when the decision-maker is picked by an agency from a pool list, where those who become favorites may get assigned cases more often.
Adding possible complication: Many of the national arbitration groups actively market their services to companies that issue credit cards or sell goods to consumers, casting additional questions on the alleged neutral's objectivity. And an arbitrator chosen by a party within an industry may be less objective, more likely to be biased in favor of the appointing group.
Lack of transparency. As mentioned, the fact that arbitration hearings are generally held in private rather than in an open courtroom, and deci
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.