BUS 405

Summary

In This article, Harry I. Johnson and George S. Howard, Jr define in extensive manner that arbitration agreement that pertains to the employees' rights to bring forward their respective cases in form of the individual cases, rather than in the class manner. This article revolves around the pleads by the employers to make this act enforceable where the employees are bond to bring forward their cases as individual cases, rather than the class cases. however, over a substantial period of time, the courts of California, have paid little heed over the pleads of the employers regarding the arbitrary agreement, articulating that via the class actions waiver play a pivotal role in impeding the employees' rights, in a manner that the powers or liberty of the employees reduce to a considerable level, where they are bound to sue, where they seek to sue merely to recuperate the individual damages. Moreover, if the circumstances or the offer rendered by the employer to the employee furnish the opportunity to opt out, with respect to a pre dispute arbitration agreement, then the employee possesses all the resources, as well as the rights to defy the agreement, and revere it to either be lacking conscience, or invalid against the public policy. Hence, even the Gentry decision is an addition to the chain of the court's ruling or judgement, translating the pre-dispute agreements to be almost futile and senseless, with respect to arbitration pertaining to the employer conflicts (Johnson and Howard, 2008). Therefore, the California Supreme Court's Gentry v. Superior Court formulated and instituted numerous innovative and burdensome tests, which utilize the opt out procedure for shaping the arbitration agreement, or which attempt to confine the arbitration to the individual cases, as a replacement for of the class actions. However, there still lies possibility for the ...