Waffle House Arbitration Agreement
(under an FAA decision, one of the FAA`s objectives is to establish arbitration agreements “on the same basis as other contracts” (citation omitted).) The Tribunal`s explanatory memorandum excludes, for example, the argument that, according to 42 U. P.C. § 2000e-5 (g) (1) would be inappropriate if, in all cases where a worker has already settled his rights, a court recognizes a specific remedy for victims. If, according to the Tribunal, the legal provision “does not allow a court to pronounce a categorical rule that has not found an expressly authorized form of remedy to be inappropriate in all cases where the worker has signed an arbitration agreement”, it certainly does not constitute an “authorization for [a] judicial authorization per se”, which prohibits the EEOC: obtain victim-specific remedies on behalf of a worker who has signed a valid settlement agreement. Ante, at 292, 293. Eric Baker, a close associate of Waffle House, Inc., signed an employment contract in 1990 that contained an agreement to resolve disputes or potential claims through binding arbitration, that is, without access to a court. Baker, who worked for the barbecue, only worked 16 days before having a seizure at work. He was released from his work. Baker filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Agency (EEOC), claiming his dismissal violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The EEOC asked the court to award additional payment, remission and damages and to award punitive damages for malicious and ruthless conduct.
However, this request was denied, as the Fourth Circuit Court, which in its petition under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), sided with Waffle House Inc. he argued that Baker`s employment contract did not include the arbitration clause. See Circuits City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 p. Ct. 1302 (2001). However, such agreements cannot prevent the EEOCs from implementing the implementing measures essential to the public functions to which the Congress wished to perform the EEOC.
1 Although this is an ADA action, gilmer has dealt with a compulsive arbitration proceeding under ADEA. Nevertheless, I see no reason why a staff member should not be required to comply with an agreement to reconcile an ADA application. In judging whether Congress has excluded the application of an arbitration agreement with respect to a particular legal right, this court decided that a party should be bound by an arbitration agreement “unless Congress itself has expressed its intention to exclude any waiver of judicial remedies for the legal rights at issue.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. . .