Employee Rights Supreme Court essays

Employee Rights Supreme Court essays Saint Clair Adams had been hired as a sales counselor by Circuit City Stores, Inc., in California. As a condition of employment, he was required to sign an agreement that any disputes that arose between Adams and his employer would be settled by arbitration. Despite that, Adams sued Circuit City Stores, Inc., in state court for various discrimination complaints. The Ninth Court of Appeals in California held that "Title VII disputes cannot be made subject to compulsory arbitration agreements" as they do not constitute interstate commerce' as specified in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). (King, 2001, Jones Day Web site) The facts in the case, as it began, are simple: Adams signed an employment contract that demanded arbitration rather than lawsuits to settle issues between employer and employee. When such an issue arose, however, Adams decided to pursue it in court rather than seek arbitration. Circuit City Stores, Inc., acted to compel Adams to enter into arbitration. The Ninth Circuit Court, contrary to the majority of other Circuit Courts, held that the FAA was written in such a way as to exclude all employment agreements from the reach of the demands of the FAA. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court's decision, saying that in fact the only agreements not subject to arbitration under FAA pertained to seamen and When the case got to the Supreme Court, it was clear that Adams wanted the Court to find with the Ninth Circuit Court, which would open the way for Adams to litigate the employment issues. Circuit City Stores, Inc., wanted the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit Court so that it could settle the dispute through arbitration. At that point, the facts of the case as originally filed were almost irrelevant. It did not matter what the specific EEOC violation by Circuit City Stores, Inc. might have been. What mattered at that point w...