I will be needed my initial post and 2 reply responses done on classmates. I will post classmate response needed as soon as I see them posted. If needed I will extend the post for the classmate responses.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. 68Read both the summary of the J. McIntyre v. Nicastro case on page 68 and the court's full decision via the link provided. 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 PDF document.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/87...J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011)Justia Opinion Summary and AnnotationsThis case arose from a products-liability suit filed in New Jersey state court where Robert Nicastro seriously injured his hand while using a metal-shearing machine manufactured by defendant. The accident occurred in New Jersey, but the machine was manufactured in England, where defendant was incorporated and operated. At issue was whether the New Jersey courts had jurisdiction over defendant, notwithstanding the fact that the company at no time either marketed goods in the State or shipped them there. The Court held that due process protected defendant's right not to be coerced except by lawful judicial power. As a general rule, the exercise of judicial power was not lawful unless defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." The Court held that there could be exceptions, say, for instance, in cases involving an intentional tort, but the general rule was applicable in this products-liability case, and the so-called "stream-of-commerce" doctrine could not displace it. Therefore, the Court held that the facts did not demonstrate that defendant purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey market and New Jersey was without power to adjudge the rights and liabilities of defendant where its exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. Accordingly, the judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court was reversed.AnnotationPrimary HoldingFactsJ. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. is a British company that was incorporated and that conducts its operations in England. A metal-shearing machine that it made was responsible for injuries suffered by Robert Nicastro in New Jersey. Nicastro brought a products liability claim against McIntyre in New Jersey state court. When its jurisdiction over McIntyre was challenged, the state court ruled that it was proper because the company sold its machines in the U.S. and participated in annual conventions there to advertise its products. Furthermore, it controlled the advertising and sales efforts of its U.S. distributor, and four of its machines had been found in New Jersey.OpinionsPluralityAnthony M. Kennedy (Author)John G. Roberts, Jr.Antonin ScaliaClarence ThomasApplying the principles of Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano County (1987), the state court ruled that jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer was proper if the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that its products were distributed through a nationwide distribution system and thus might reach any state. However, it is important to remember the general rule that parties that live or operate primarily outside a state are usually not subject to jurisdiction there because of due process concerns. Some of the ways in which a party from outside a state may show its willingness to be subject to jurisdiction there include consent, personal presence in the state when process is served, citizenship or domicile in the state, or incorporation in the state.The exception to the general rule based on injecting goods into the stream of commerce applies only when these activities show the intention of the defendant to submit to the laws of the state. It should not be interpreted so broadly that jurisdiction may be found whenever goods are sent through distributors to consumers with the intention that the consumers will purchase them. A federal court might have jurisdiction over the defendant because it does direct sales and advertising toward the U.S. in general, but a state court does not have jurisdiction because those efforts were not targeted specifically at New Jersey. Purposeful availment must be analyzed with respect to the individual state, not the U.S. overall.ConcurrenceStephen G. Breyer (Author)Samuel A. Alito, Jr.Rather than crafting a new rule to reach the appropriate conclusion, the plurality simply could have relied on precedent. Earlier decisions have rejected the theory that a single isolated sale could support personal jurisdiction.DissentRuth Bader Ginsburg (Author)Sonia SotomayorElena KaganWhen a company tries to solicit business in the U.S., it generally does not target a particular state but rather all of the states in general. Personal jurisdiction should have been found under International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945).Case CommentarySince the court was so sharply divided in this case, it is unclear whether this decision deviates from precedent in establishing a new rule or whether it simply limits the original personal jurisdiction test in those precedents.SYLLABUSOCTOBER TERM, 2010J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. V. NICASTROSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESJ. McINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. v. NICASTRO, individually and as administrator of the ESTATE OF NICASTROcertiorari to the supreme court of new jerseyNo. 09–1343. Argued January 11, 2011—Decided June 27, 2011Respondent Nicastro injured his hand while using a metal-shearing machine that petitioner J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (J. McIntyre), manufactured in England, where the company is incorporated and operates. Nicastro filed this products-liability suit in a state court in New Jersey, where the accident occurred, but J. McIntyre sought to dismiss the suit for want of personal jurisdiction. Nicastro’s jurisdictional claim was based on three primary facts: A U. S. distributor agreed to sell J. McIntyre’s machines in this country; J. McIntyre officials attended trade shows in several States, albeit not in New Jersey; and no more than four J. McIntyre machines (the record suggests only one), including the one at issue, ended up in New Jersey. The State Supreme Court held that New Jersey’s courts can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer without contravening the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause so long as the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to sales in any of the States. Invoking this “stream-of-commerce” doctrine of jurisdiction, the court relied in part on Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U. S. 102. Applying its test, the court concluded that J. McIntyre was subject to jurisdiction in New Jersey, even though at no time had it advertised in, sent goods to, or in any relevant sense targeted the State.Held: The judgment is reversed.201 N. J. 48, 987 A. 2d 575, reversed. Justice Kennedy, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas, concluded that because J. McIntyre never engaged in any activities in New Jersey that revealed an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of the State’s laws, New Jersey is without power to adjudge the company’s rights and liabilities, and its exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. Pp. 4–12. (a) Due process protects the defendant’s right not to be coerced except by lawful judicial power. A court may subject a defendant to judgment only when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the sovereign “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316. Freeform fundamental fairness notions divorced from traditional practice cannot transform a judgment rendered without authority into law. As a general rule, the sovereign’s exercise of power requires some act by which the defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253. In cases like this one, it is the defendant’s purposeful availment that makes jurisdiction consistent with “fair play and substantial justice” notions. No “stream-of-commerce” doctrine can displace that general rule for products-liability cases. The rules and standards for determining state jurisdiction over an absent party have been unclear because of decades-old questions left open in Asahi. The imprecision arising from Asahi, for the most part, results from its statement of the relation between jurisdiction and the “stream of commerce.” That concept, like other metaphors, has its deficiencies as well as its utilities. It refers to the movement of goods from manufacturers through distributors to consumers, yet beyond that descriptive purpose its meaning is far from exact. A defendant’s placement of goods into commerce “with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers within the forum State” may indicate purposeful availment. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 298. But that does not amend the general rule of personal jurisdiction. The principal inquiry in cases of this sort is whether the defendant’s activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign. See, e.g., Hanson, supra, at 253. In Asahi, Justice Brennan’s concurrence (joined by three other Justices) discarded the central concept of sovereign authority in favor of fairness and foreseeability considerations on the theory that the defendant’s ability to anticipate suit is the touchstone of jurisdiction. 480 U. S., at 117. However, Justice O’Connor’s lead opinion (also for four Justices) stated that “[t]he ‘substantial connection’ between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Id., at 112. Since Asahi, the courts have sought to reconcile the competing opinions. But Justice Brennan’s rule based on general notions of fairness and foreseeability is inconsistent with the premises of lawful judicial power under this Court’s precedents. Today’s conclusion that the authority to subject a defendant to judgment depends on purposeful availment is consistent with Justice O’Connor’s Asahi opinion. Pp. 4–10. (b) Nicastro has not established that J. McIntyre engaged in conduct purposefully directed at New Jersey. The company had no office in New Jersey; it neither paid taxes nor owned property there; and it neither advertised in, nor sent any employees to, the State. Indeed, the trial court found that petitioner did not have a single contact with the State apart from the fact that the machine in question ended up there. Neither these facts, nor the three on which Nicastro centered his jurisdictional claim, show that J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey market. Pp. 10–12. Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Alito, agreed that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s judgment must be reversed, but concluded that because this case does not present issues arising from recent changes in commerce and communication, it is unwise to announce a rule of broad applicability without fully considering modern-day consequences. Rather, the outcome of the case is determined by the Court’s precedents. Pp. 2–7. (a) Based on the record, respondent Nicastro failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that it was constitutionally proper to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (British Manufacturer). The three primary facts the state high court relied on do not satisfy due process. None of the Court’s precedents finds that a single isolated sale, even if accompanied by the kind of sales effort indicated here, is sufficient. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286; Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U. S. 102. Here, the relevant facts show no “regular … flow” or “regular course” of sales in New Jersey, id., at 117 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 122 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); and there is no “something more,” such as special state-related design, advertising, advice, or marketing, id., at 111, 112 (opinion of O’Connor, J.), that would warrant the assertion of jurisdiction. Nicastro has shown no specific effort by the British Manufacturer to sell in New Jersey. And he has not otherwise shown that the British Manufacturer “ ‘purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities’ ” within New Jersey, or that it delivered its goods in the stream of commerce “with the expectation that they will be purchased” by New Jersey users. World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, at 297–298. Pp. 2–4. (b) Justice Breyer would not go further. Because the incident at issue does not implicate modern concerns, and because the factual record leaves many open questions, this is an unsuitable vehicle for making broad pronouncements that refashion basic jurisdictional rules. At a minimum, he would not work such a change to the law in the way either the plurality or the New Jersey Supreme Court suggests without a better understanding of the relevant contemporary commercial circumstances. Insofar as such considerations are relevant to any change in present law, they might be presented in a case (unlike the present one) in which the Solicitor General participates. Pp. 4–7. Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Alito, J., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

6-2 Discussion: Supporting a Thesis StatementBased on your reading in the webtext, select and respond to one of the following thesis statements. Your response should be two to three paragraphs long and should include your position on the issue. Cite at least three specific pieces of historical evidence.1. In the long run, busing helped Boston because it desegregated the school system, provided equal educational opportunity for minority students, and set the stage for racial healing and an improved racial climate in the twenty-first century.OR2. In the long run, busing hurt Boston because it led to violent racial strife, contributed to white flight, and damaged the quality of the public school system.In response to your peers, explain what you learned from reading their post and how their thesis statement compares to your own. You may respond to peers who selected either of the two thesis statements.To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document.Rubrics is a attachment1st response neededWeek 6 Discussion Tanner Blake posted Apr 8, 2020 5:11 PMWhen discussing the topic of Boston Busing Crisis, I would like to talk about how in the long run, busing hurt Boston because it led to violent racial strife, contributed to white flight, and damaged the quality of the public school system. The reason why I am siding with option 2, the side that hurt Boston, is because there were more immediate negative impacts than there were positive impacts at the time and for the next 20+ years. The negative impacts were piling up, white residents were moving out of the area, school dropout rates were climbing, more and more police patrolling the area, children being in the line of fire for no reason while riding the buses and the list goes on. One of the most interesting pieces I read was when Mayor Kevin White stated "If Boston were a sovereign state, busing would be cause for a revolution." If that doesn't state how bad the Boston Busing Crisis was, I don't know what would! Another reason why I feel that the busing hurt Boston is because when the total school population went from 93,000 in 1971-1972 down to 60,000 in 1990, this was the worst consequence for long term to the public schools of Boston, not only did the children suffer, but the teachers did too. When looking at the academic side of this crazy event, what was most shocking to me was that even though children were doing poorly in school and even failing, they were still being promoted to the next grade! For example, in the reading it stated "At Dorchester's William E. Endicott School, 95 percent of the fifth-graders scored "poor" or "failing" in reading and 100 percent scored "poor" or "failing" in math. Yet all of these students were promoted to the next grade." How does a school justify these actions? To me, this was setting a student up for failure at a later date in life. When looking at SAT scores from Boston it was stated "On average, SAT test takers in the city's high schools scored 845 (out of 1600)..." This absolutely blew my mind in terms of how poorly the education system is over there and the fact that it could be worse today is even more concerning! If they did not correct them and teach them the proper way, who was going to step up and do it for them? As a parent, if I would have known this was going on, I would have been furious! 2nd response needed6-2 Discussion: Supporting a Thesis Statement Morgan Gourley posted Apr 8, 2020 8:55 PMThe tricky part of these thesis statements is "in the long run" because yes eventually there was desegregation in Boston but that wasn't until after there was violence, apparent white flight, and a damaged quality of the school system. Because of this I lean more towards the second thesis statement; In the long run, busing hurt Boston because it led to violent racial strife, contributed to white flight, and damaged the quality of the public school system. It said in the reading that critics argued whether school bussing was a mathematical balance to the issue of segregation rather than improving school quality like African American families where originally concerned about. Judge W. Arthur Garrity's solution of ordering any school whose enrollment was more than 50% nonwhite must be balanced according to race doesn't feel like a direct solution to improving school quality, especially since the Boston School Committee was against desegregation to begin with. (Gellerman, 2014)The reading mentions the riots and violence that occurred at the very beginning of the school year. When school started in September buses were met with white protesters some of which threw bricks and rocks at the buses. (Wolff, 2015) The protesters were growing so violent that between 1974 and 1976 the National Guard became involved by escorting students to school to protect them from crowds that would often end up fighting. Things got so bad that not only African American students were being affected too but white students were beginning to boycott school due to safety concerns and the student population decreased by 40%. (Lukas, 1985) The opposite of improving school quality was happening as there wasn't enough time for education due to all the activity of those who were against school busing continued to take action against the students. In 1990 Boston's population decreased by 66,788 from 1970 and approximately 59% of residents were white compared to the 82% of white residents in 1970. (U.S. Civil Rights Commission, 1975) This action of white flight may or may not be directly correlated with school busing, regardless the numbers still decreased significantly. School busing seems like a very round-about way of addressing the issue that African American families were protesting. It seems like it added fuel to a fire that was already there, maybe inevitably there and that's why I think the second thesis statement is more relevant to the reading. Boston's Busing Crisis: Further ReadingThis page offers you two readings that provide very different views of the Boston busing crisis.The first article argues the need for busing as a means to desegregate the schools; the second argues that busing hurt the quality of Boston's schools. Both readings are required, to help you gain a better understanding of both sides of this issue.The first reading is excerpted from "Deep Are the Roots: Busing in Boston". This article was written in 1976, while the busing crisis was taking place. Click on the title of the article to read, download, and print a copy of the text. These readings are provided by the Shapiro Library. You will have to log into Shapiro Library with your SNHU credentials to access this article."No Other Alternative"Frightening scenes have been observed in streets and schools. Caravans of buses have been escorted by squads of motorcycle police. Other police, all the force could supply, stood elbow to elbow to protect black youngsters. Still, violence was not prevented. Stones and bottles thrown at buses broke the windows and cut children's skin. High school students beat each other with fists and clubs. A black man who happened to be parked near a gang of white youths was dragged from his car, kicked and beaten until rescued—and only because he was black....The[se] episodes seem to be most incongruous with the state which originated the nation's first open-housing law and subsequently passed an admirable racial imbalance law to assure equal educational opportunity for all of its children. Indeed, such hostile acts do not seem consistent with Boston—the "cradle of liberty"—the city that desegregated schools in 1855! Dan Richardson, a former Federal housing official, has provided a possible explanation: "We pass great laws here, but when it comes to Boston, there's never any enforcement. This must be one of the most segregated cities anywhere in housing and in schools, North or South."...On Monday night, protesters firebombed the birthplace of former President John F. Kennedy and scrawled "Bus Teddy" on the front sidewalk. One of the 94 persons arrested during the first four days of school was a South Boston youth who was carrying 15 firebombs in his car. A school bus had disappeared, but 69 per cent of the students were in attendance and there were no serious injuries. School authorities were anticipating a successful school year. Busing is an unpopular term in Boston and many white parents are asking why it is necessary. They feel that if all schools had quality education busing would be unnecessary. Busing is not totally accepted by black parents, but they realize that segregated housing, in many instances, leaves no other alternative to quality integrated education.The second reading is excerpted from "Busing's Boston Massacre". This article was written in 1998, long after the crisis had ended. Click on the title of the article to read, download, and print a copy of the text. These readings are provided by the Shapiro Library. You will have to log into Shapiro Library with your SNHU credentials to access this article."Cause for a Revolution""Eighty percent of the people in Boston are against busing," said Mayor Kevin White. "If Boston were a sovereign state, busing would be cause for a revolution." On the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, [Federal Judge] Arthur Garrity ruled over Boston like a reincarnated King George. In the school system, his word was law and integration without representation had become the new tyranny....Busing has not only failed to integrate Boston schools, it has also failed to improve education opportunities for the city's black children. When Boston introduced Stanford 9 testing to the public schools in 1996, 94 percent of seventh-graders at Woodrow Wilson Elementary School scored "poor" or "failing" in math, as did 73 percent of fifth-graders at Brighton's Alexander Hamilton School. At Dorchester's William E. Endicott School, 95 percent of the fifth-graders scored "poor" or "failing" in reading and 100 percent scored "poor" or "failing" in math. Yet all of these students were promoted to the next grade.On the statewide Iowa Reading Test, the Boston Public Schools ranked 275 out of the 279 cities and towns in Massachusetts. Even the working-class city of Lawrence, with a large immigrant population and a high crime rate, outscored the Boston Public Schools despite the fact that Lawrence teachers make almost $15,000 less on average than Boston teachers....On the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), Boston fares even worse. On average, SAT test takers in the city's high schools scored 845 (out of 1600) in 1996, surpassing only those in Chelsea. If you exclude the three exam schools, Boston would surely be last. With pathetic standardized test scores and an average promotion rate of 94 percent, it is hard to imagine the Boston Public Schools have improved since busing began. In fact, the evidence suggests they are probably worse.