Question Details

[solution] » I have a case study and have to answer 3 question for the case. i

Brief item decscription

Step-by-step solution file


Item details:

I have a case study and have to answer 3 question for the case. i
More:

I have a case study and have to answer 3 question for the case. i am looking for some can help me to answer those question in the essay from. I also provide the guide how to answer them, Too busy to put them in the essay format. The is relate to sexual harassment law and some business ethics concept like utilitarianism (cost and benefit), moral dilemma, kantian model, and SIMAC.


Hooters Brief 1. CASE NAME, CITATION AND COURT

 

Hooters of America, Incorporated v. Phillips

 

173 F. 3d 933 (1999)

 

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

 

2. SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS

 

A. Annette Phillips was a bartender at a Hooters restaurant franchise in

 

Myrtle Beach, SC (HOMB).

 

B. In June 1996, Gerald Brooks, an official of the parent Hooters company

 

and brother of the HOMB?s principal owner, sexually harassed Phillips by

 

grabbing her.

 

C. Phillips appealed to her manager who told her to ?let it go.?

 

D. Phillips promptly quit and threatened to sue Hooters for employment

 

discrimination under Title VII.

 

E. Phillips had signed an agreement in 1994, and again in 1995, agreeing to

 

arbitrate any claim for sexual harassment pursuant to the parent company?s

 

rules promulgated from time to time.

 

F. The company stated it would make those rules available upon request but

 

Phillips didn?t see them until after termination when her attorney

 

requested them.

 

G. After seeing the rules, Phillips refused Hooter?s demand to arbitrate.

 

H. Hooters filed suit first in federal district court in South Carolina to compel

 

arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Phillips counterclaimed

 

against HOMB for discrimination under Title VII.

 

I. The district court denied Hooter?s motions to compel arbitration and to

 

stay proceedings on Phillip?s counterclaim against HOMB, ruling that the

 

arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Hooters filed an interlocutory

 

appeal. Amicus briefs were filed on the appeal.

 

3. THE ISSUES

 

A. Whether employees can agree to arbitrate Title VII discrimination claims

 

in pre-dispute agreements; and

 

B. Whether the arbitration agreement between Hooters and Phillips is binding

 

requiring Phillips to submit her Title VII claim to arbitration. 1 4. THE HOLDING

 

A. Yes. Pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate Title VII discrimination claims

 

are valid and enforceable.

 

B. No. Hooters breached its agreement to arbitrate by setting up a dispute

 

resolution process that was so unfair that it excuses Phillips from a duty to

 

arbitrate and the contract to arbitrate should be rescinded.

 

5. SUMMARY OF THE COURT?S REASONING

 

A. Despite the EEOC?s contention that Title VII discrimination claims are not

 

subject to arbitration under the Civil Rights Act, the language of that Act is

 

quite clear that such claims may be arbitrated.

 

B. Hooter?s rules viewed as a whole are ?so one-sided that their only possible

 

purpose is to undermine the neutrality of the proceeding:

 

i. Employees must give Hooters specific information about their

 

claims and witnesses but Hooters is not required to disclose

 

defenses or witnesses.

 

ii. Employees must pick from a panel of arbitrators that are selected

 

exclusively by Hooters (may be family and other managers).

 

iii. Hooters can expand the proceeding beyond the scope of the

 

employee?s claim, but employee can?t.

 

iv. Hooters can move for summary dismissal before hearing, but

 

employee can?t.

 

v. Hooters can seek to vacate any arbitral award in court, but

 

employee can?t.

 

vi. Hooters can cancel the arbitration agreement, but employee can?t.

 

vii. Hooters can modify the arbitration rules at any time without notice,

 

even in the middle of the arbitration proceedings.

 

C. Hooter?s arbitration agreement violates the contractual obligation imposed

 

on each party to a contract to deal in good faith.

 

D. Fairness objections normally should be made to the arbitrator and

 

reviewed after arbitration but this case in an exception because of the

 

severe nature of Hooter?s contract breach.

 

. 2

 







About this question:
STATUS
Answered
QUALITY
Approved
ANSWER RATING

This question was answered on: Feb 21, 2020

PRICE: $24

Solution~00066642192.zip (18.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $24

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card. All your purchases are securely protected by PayPal.
SiteLock

Need a similar solution fast, written anew from scratch? Place your own custom order

We have top-notch tutors who can help you with your essay at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments. This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student. New solution orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

Order Now