Description
Week 1 Case Questions
Select TWO court cases (from different chapters) from the list below, and respond in writing to the case questions.
Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores (Ch 1, p 7)
Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange (Ch 1, p 21)
EEOC v. Autozone (Ch 1, p 25)
Narayan v. EGL, Inc. (Ch 2, p 40)
Glatt v. Fox Searchligh Pictures Ch 2, p 42)
Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. (Ch 2, p 57)
Jones v. Oklahoma City Public Schools (Ch 3, p 83)
Diaz v. Kraft Foods Global (Ch 3, p 86)
Chattman v. Toho Tenax America (Ch 3, p 90)
Geleta v. Gray (Ch 3, p 100)
The requirements below must be met for your paper to be accepted and graded:
Write 750 3 pages) using Microsoft Word in APA style, see example below.
Use font size 12 and 1” margins.
Include cover page and reference page.
At least 80% of your paper must be original content/writing.
No more than 20% of your content/information may come from references.
Use at least three references from outside the course material, one reference must be from EBSCOhost. Text book, lectures, and other materials in the course may be used, but are not counted toward the three reference requirement.
Cite all reference material (data, dates, graphs, quotes, paraphrased words, values, etc.) in the paper and list on a reference page in APA style.
References must come from sources such as, scholarly journals found in EBSCOhost, CNN, online newspapers such as, The Wall Street Journal, government websites, etc. Sources such as, Wikis, Yahoo Answers, eHow, blogs, etc. are not acceptable for academic writing.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
OUTLINE
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
Course Title
Student Name
Institution Affiliation
Date
1
Week 1 Case Questions
Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange (Ch. 1, p 21)
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Court of Appeals decide?
The legal issue in this case is whether the arbitration agreement was unacceptable or
unconscionable, and whether the unacceptable terms could be done away with without making
the entire agreement void. Another issue was whether the employer had waived the right to
compel arbitration by its move to litigate the case for 15 months. The Court of Appeals decided
that the agreement was unconscionable and the unacceptable terms could not be separated
entirely from the other parts of the agreement. Also, the court maintained that by waiting for
too long to invoke the agreement, the employer had waived the right to compel arbitration. The
plaintiff could therefore lawfully peruse the claims of discrimination against the employer in
court.
2. What does it mean for a contract to be “unconscionable”? “Procedurally
unconscionable”? “Substantively unconscionable”?
Contracts can be considered to be unconscionable when there is no meaningful choice for one
party, or when the term favor one party more than the other. A contract has to be proven to be
both procedurally and substantively unconscionable to conclude that it is unconscionable in its
entirety. A substantively unconscionable contract is when the contents of the contract are either
oppressive, one-sided, harsh and unfavorable to one side. Procedurally unconscionable
agreements refer to ‘contracts of adhesion’ which are dr...