Employment Law Essay

The main issue under(a) context in this case is whether a claim under the Age contrariety in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) can be subjected to overbearing arbitrement pursuant to an arbitrament agreement in a securities registration applications programme. Gilmer contends that it is not.Among the arguments raise by Gilmer are a) the exacting arbitrament of claims under the ADEA pursuant to arbitrement agreement is inconsistent with the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Agreement b) the imperious arbitrement of claims will undermine the type of the EEOC in enforcing the ADEA c) compulsory arbitration will deprive the claimant of the judicial forum provided for by the ADEA d) compulsory arbitration should not be countenanced because of the inherent inequality in the batching force between the employers and the employees.The Supreme lawcourt affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that an ADEA claim may be subjected to com pulsory arbitration. The Supreme Court ruled that it does not see any repugnance between the purpose of FAA and the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate under age discrimination claims. The Sherman Act, the Securities re-sentencing Act of 1934, RICO, and the Securities Act of 1933 all are designed to advance principal(prenominal) public policies but claims under these statutes may still be subjected to compulsory arbitration.Also, it is incorrect to argue that compulsory arbitration will undermine the role of EEOC in enforcing the ADEA because a claimant subject to arbitration agreement is still warrant to file a charge with the EEOC. Further, compulsory arbitration agreements will not deprive the claimants of their right to seek judicial recourse under ADEA kind of it even broadens the right of the claimants as they now catch the right to learn the forum for resolving their disputes whether judicial or otherwise.Mere inequality in the bargaining power between the employer and the employee is not sufficient to hold that arbitration agreements should not be enforceable as it is precisely the purpose of FAA to rear arbitration agreements in the same footing as other pay offs. In effect, the Gilmer case required claimants who are under compulsory arbitration agreements to concur with the said agreements before they seek judicial recourse even if it involves a claim under the ADEA.In the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens, he argued that arbitration clauses contained in employment agreements are specifically exempt from insurance coverage of the FAA thus respondent corporation cannot compel petitioner to submit his claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to compulsory arbitration. unitary of the arguments raised is that the requirement of compulsory arbitration between the petitioner and the respondent is not embodied in the contract of employment.In fact it was admitted by both parties that there was no contr act of employment between them. Instead, the imperative Arbitration clause was embodied only in Gilmers application for registration before the NYSE. Moreover even if there was a contract of employment, the FAA should be not held to apply to employment-related disputes between employees and employers. It would be contrary to the intent of the FAA to allow the same people who have practiced discrimination against an employee to bargain with them for the purpose of settling their disputes.I agree with the majority opinion. In the start place, the injured party in discrimination suits is the employee. As the injured party, they have the freedom to seek judicial recourse for the purpose of obtaining relief for the maltreat done to them. However, they also have the freedom to opt for other alternatives. In an effort to sustain their dispute with their employers, they may choose to enter into arbitration. Indeed, it would be more in keeping with the laissez faire doctrine to allow bo th the employers and the employees to settle their dispute among themselves.