LEARN MORE...

Labor Cases

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Business Law

School

Grantham University

Course

HRM 370

Type

Homework

Uploaded By

ghpxrearnffn00

Pages

Showing Page:

1/7

Running Head: LABOR CASES 1

Employee Discrimination Cases

Name

Course

Institution

Date

Showing Page:

2/7

LABOR CASES 2

Nino versus the Jewelry Exchange

Legal Issue and decision by the Court of Appeal

The legal issue presented was that Nino filed a lawsuit that he was discriminated due to his

nationality and gender. The employer had invoked an arbitration agreement in Nino’s contract,

and the employer moved the District Court judge to compel both parties to arbitrate. The case

presented to the court of appeal involved determining whether the contract was fair and enforceable

under the law and also determine if the part that was regarded as conscionable could be removed

and still promote a fair arbitration process. The Court upheld that the contract was unconscionable

and that it was not severable. This way, Nino could pursue his claims in court.

Unconscionable, Procedurally Unconscionable and Substantively Unconscionable contract

An unconscionable contract is an agreement whose terms are unreasonably unfair to one

party in the manner that it is one-sided and it cannot be enforced under the law. In this case, the

weaker party is left with little or no intellectual or bargaining power (Akhbari, 2018). For an

agreement to be identified ad unconscionable, there must be evidence that it is substantively and

procedurally unconscionable. In this case, a procedurally unconscionable contract is that whose

terms have been drafted by the stronger party with more power such that it is unconscionable and

one party takes advantage of the other. This results in one party oppressing the other as bargaining

power is unequal (U.S legal, n.d). Lastly, the substantively unconscionable contract refers to an

agreement that is one-sided, overly harsh, and the terms in the agreement are unfair/unjust to one

party (FindLaw, 2019a).

Showing Page:

3/7

End of Preview - Want to read all 7 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1 Running Head: LABOR CASES Employee Discrimination Cases Name Course Institution Date LABOR CASES 2 Nino versus the Jewelry Exchange Legal Issue and decision by the Court of Appeal The legal issue presented was that Nino filed a lawsuit that he was discriminated due to his nationality and gender. The employer had invoked an arbitration agreement in Nino’s contract, and the employer moved the District Court judge to compel both parties to arbitrate. The case presented to the court of appeal involved determining whether the contract was fair and enforceable under the law and also determine if the part that was regarded as conscionable could be removed and still promote a fair arbitration process. The Court upheld that the contract was unconscionable and that it was not severable. This way, Nino could pursue his claims in court. Unconscionable, Procedurally Unconscionable and Substantively Unconscionable contract An unconscionable contract is an agreement whose terms are unreasonably unfair to one party in the manner that it is one-sided and it cannot be enforced under the law. In this case, the weaker party is left with little or no intellectual or bargaining power (Akhbari, 2018). For an agreement to be identified ad unconscionable, there must be evidence that it is substantively and procedurally unconscionable. In this case, a procedurally unconscionable contract is that whose terms have been drafted by the stronger party with more power such that it is unconscionabl ...
Purchase document to see full attachment