|
美国商业法必修课程作业：FIN240 CASE BRIEF
论文语言：英语论文 English
论文专业：IB
字数：1100
学校国家：美国
是否有数据处理要求：否
您的学校：sha
论文用于：BA assignment 本科课程作业
补充要求和说明：
根据我发的pdf的要求 分析doc文件里的三个案例 这门课是FIN240 商业法 是任何商科专业的学生的必修 所以得找学商科的写手来写
美国商业法必修课程作业：FIN240 CASE BRIEF
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc.
United States Supreme Court, 2002.
534 U.S. 279
Facts:Waffle House provides job to it employees yet everyone join the Waffle House
Must singe a private contractor agreement between Waffle House and the employee that incase of any dispute it will be settled by binding arbitration. Eric Baker was an employee of Waffle House who has been fired out, Eric Baker field this action was not illegal and thus he has filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that his discharge violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) under Title VII. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed an enforcement suit against Waffle House demanded them to specific relief designed to make Baker whole, including back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages; and punitive damages and argued that Waffle House has violated the ADA act under Title VII 1990.
Issue:Dose the EEOC has the right to takes action to outweigh theWaffle Houseprivate singed contract with its employees and enforce Waffle House to back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages; and punitive damages to Eric Baker and other employees that faced the same fate.
Ruling: No, Eric Baker has signed a private contract with Waffle House the obligate him to Committed to that contract. The Supreme Court has distinguished between public interest and the Eric Baker case.
Reasons: the Supreme Court reasoned that the private contract the has been signed between Eric Baker and Waffle House has not violated the act (ADA) low in which it represent an legal agreement between the two party Eric Baker and Waffle House .
Justice Stevens argued that was based competing policies that applied by ADA and the FAA. However is state that EEOC never agreed to the arbitrate claim, yet the EEOC has its own statutory authority to enforce the low for public interest. The dispute this policy the court has distinguished among injunctive and victim-specific relief. The court rejected the EEOC’s lawsuit and said that EEOC can only proceed when it seek for public interest issue the EEOC does not provided full evidence that can change the court opinion. If it were true that EEOC which proceed that claim with only Baker’s consent.
The court appeals it to balancing the policy goals of FAA and clear argument of the title VII and the contract between Eric Baker and Waffle House. It not clears that whether the FAA placed the arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts or not. Therefore there is ambiguity on how the court would appeal. It goes to say that the contract cannot be bind behind and the EEOC shall not have any projection in this matter. Also EEOC is not part of that contract and this take us to the point whether EEOC has the right to sue Waffle House over Eric Baker issue.
That remaining fact that EEOC has the right and it can take action on behalf of any employee to claim and seek relief for that employee even that employee has drop out the case or has disavowed any desire to seek that relief. The law clearly state that EEOC is the master of its own issue and cases and it reserve the right of evaluate the strength of the public interest at stake. The lake of view support is public agency province, and not the court responsibility to determine whether or not public resources should be committed to recovery of the victim relief. If the agency makes the determination the verdict is unambiguously allow to proceed in judicial.
BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC v. CARDEGNA ET AL.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT2006
546 U.S. 440 ,
Facts: This is betweenJohn Cardegna and Donna Reuter entered into several transactions with Buckeye Check Cashing (“Buckeye”) where they received cash in exchange for a personal check in the amount of the cash, plus a finance charge. For this transaction , they was sign an agreement ,but it is containing mandatory arbitration clauses. The Donna Reuter come to Florida state court suit the John Cardegna ,and the reasons are the high interest that is illegal in USA ,The trial court denied the motion Buckeyes that court rather than an arbitrator, because the trial court think the contract is illegal .
Issue: Doesthe agreement is considered a crime, because it violates the lending and consumer protection laws in Florida, because of the high interest rates are illegal?
Whether the challenge issued in both cases when open will result in a contract may revoke or invalid?
Ruling:That the question of mandatory arbitration clauses to enforce illegal contracts could inject life, not only violates the law of the country, but also the criminal nature of the contract.
Reasons:Justice Scalia: arbitration agreement ", the as exist in law or in equity for the revocation of any contract such a reason," the challenge of the validity can be divided into two types.
I think regardless of whether the challenge to the arbitration clause brought federal or state court challenging the validity of the contract as a whole, rather than specific, you must go to the arbitrator.
The arbitration law applicable to state and federal courts, they apply to this case, we conclude that, because the respondents questioned the agreement, but did not clarify its arbitration provisions, in addition to the remainder of the contract to enforce its provisions.
ROBERT GILMER v. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORPORATION
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
500 U.S. 20 (1991)
Fact : Robert Gilmer plaintiff sued his employer accused of Interstate / Johnson Lane Company. Gilmer claimed that their employers violate Age Discrimination in Employment Act.When the defendant hired him as a registered securities dealer, Gilmer signed an agreement to resolve through arbitration any dispute arising from employment.
Issue: Does Discrimination on the basis of age in 1967 (ADEA) Employment Act claims can withstand the arbitration agreement to compel arbitration in accordance with the application of a securities registration?
Ruling: Circuit Court by arbitration to resolve any disputes arising from employment.By agreeing to arbitrate a statutory requirement, the party does not forgo the substantive rights conferred by law, it can only be resolved in arbitration submitted to them, rather than a judicial forum.
Reason:The parties shall be held unless Congress itself has the statutory right to exclude evidence of intention to abandon judicial remedy the problem. "Responsibility lies Gilmer showed that Congress intended to exclude abandon ADEA claims .... Throughout this http://www.ukassignment.org/mgzydx/ inquiry, it should be borne in mind that the judicial forum" arbitrability issue that must be resolved by the federal health policy in favor of arbitration.
Gilmer admitted, did not explicitly exclude arbitration ADEA or its legislative history text
Gilmer oppose compulsory arbitration is inappropriate, because it deprived the claimant ADEA required judicial forum.
|
