The AT&T v. Concepcion case involved a suit filed against AT&T for deceptive advertising. They had signed a contract with AT&T for the sale and servicing of cellular phones. The contract provided that in the event of consumer dispute, arbitration was the only option. AT&T compelled for arbitration which was denied by the district court and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. AT&T thus appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court’s 5-4 majority ruling held that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) superseded state laws which prevents the making of contracts that do not allow class action.
BRIEF FOR AT&T MOBILITY v. CONCEPCION
In the AT&T v. Concepcion case, Vincent and Liza Concepcion purchased a cell phone and service plan from AT&T, for which they were told, was a “free” phone. Although the phone was advertised as free under the service contract, the Concepcions were required to pay sales tax based upon the retail value of the phone, a sum of $30.22. The Concepcions alleged AT&T provided false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax and thus, they filed suit against AT&T as a class action lawsuit.
Under the service contract agreement, AT&T contained an arbitration clause that required claims be brought in the parties’ “individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding” (..from the case..). According to the contract, this meant that the Concepcions had to bring their claim as an individual arbitration and not as a member of class. To “bring the action individually acted as a class action waiver,” which was “unconscionable” under the California law as articulated by the California Supreme Court in Discover Bank (source….). California law prohi...
... middle of paper ...
...ciples. Instead, greed, misconduct, and deceit continue to be exposed when profit maximization becomes the only goal of a company.
CONCLUSION
The ruling of the Concepcion case reveals that the law can be flawed and the courts can make poor decisions that are misguided and unfair to the public. Although the Concepcion case involved a minor fraud, it was disappointing that the Court did not acknowledge their right to fair trial for a legitimate suit. Instead, the ruling allows companies and businesses to continue to have binding contracts that prevents consumers and employees to file a class action lawsuit in handling disputes. In light of the Concepcion case, Congress should revisit the FAA laws as well as current consumer protection laws and put an end to forced arbitration in consumer disputes and restore the rights of citizens to use the courts to find justice.
The Tucker vs. Walgreen Company was a nationwide known class action case. It fell into the category of race discrimination. This cases was brought to the attention of the law by African Americans who were employed at this retail and pharmacy store. This pledged that they were being discriminated to by the following acts:failure to move up in positions (promotion), dieing them the opportunity to apply for assistant manager and manager, and being assigned to an undesirable store for an extended period of time compared to whites. They filed a class action lawsuit with the demand of compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Along with these demands, the plaintiffs desired class certification for those who have been previously affected by the defendant’s discriminatory acts as well as any who will suffer from them in the future.
The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the jury's findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan. This discrimination was unintentional. However, the policy did have an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goals through a different method that would not effectively discriminate. The reason for the suit had to do with the fact that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the age of forty. There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial while some of the others settled with the company on their own. In the end, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total award of $4.2. The case was appealed and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow disparate impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim involved disparate treatment and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination. The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not resolved the appropriate use of ADEA in terms of disparate impact. It was further stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily overrule prior cases. The idea that disparate impact claims may not be allowed under ADEA is therefore rejected.
The issue in this case was whether California and Hawaiian Sugar Company could recover the liquidated damages from Sun Ship. Where there is a contract between the parties for liquidated damages and d there were no misrepresentations or unfair dealing in creating the contract,
Opinion by Carnes, Circuit Judge. We conclude that the district court’s judgment was an appealable “final decision”. We also hold that the arbitration agreement in this case defeats the remedial purposes of the TILA and is unenforceable.
The trial court ruled in favor of Esquire Radio. The court ruled that ward was obligated to purchase the excess inventory even though there was no contract. The promises were sufficient to satisfy the law of Promissory Estoppel.
The Court in the 6th Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that his former employer, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), was liable under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by deliberately discriminating against him under both the disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses.
The question at stake was if a plaintiff could bring forth a suit of salary discrimination under Title VII when the unequal salary a person received during the 180-day limit prescribed in the provisions is ultimately the result of a long period of discrimination that reached far beyond the statutory limitations . Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts that her failure to file with the EEOC when she first felt like her salary was based on discriminatory actions did not allow her special considerations for because she felt that her pay discrimination was not the same as other types of employment discriminations; however, they believed her claim to be untimely as a decision regarding pay has to do with a particular point in time, which in this case would only be permissible in the 180 days and the pay period after she filed the
No, the court granted a petition for review, vacated the order of the FCC, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The case will be brought to a new trial and the first ruling will be reversed. The case will be compared to prior cases and a ruling made that reflects those of similar cases in order to determine if the policy was well reasoned.
Before this Court may address whether a preliminary injunction is warranted, it must first address the NFL's argument that the Norris-LaGuardia Act precludes any injunctive relief here, as well as its argument that the Court should defer this matter, or at least a portion of it, to the National Labor Relations Board under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction— issues that the NFL contends are jurisdictional. (Id. at 9-10, 36 (Mem. at 1-2, 28) (characterizing these two issues as "jurisdictional").
Another even more high news case was Ricci v. DeStefano. This landmark case ,most likely lead to Griffin and Low being rewarded as they were, started in 2003 when nineteen firefighters filled a lawsuit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut alleging that the city discriminated against them regarding promotions. Of these firefighters, seventeen are Caucasian and two are Hispanic, had all passed the city test for promotions to management. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the b...
...nancial. However, as set out by the Court in Allied-Bruce and Southland Corp the FAA confines the level to which any given state court and statue can circumvent the specified purpose of the Act and limit the rights of involved parties who have arrived into arbitration arrangements (Hayford, 2000).
The second anti-trust suit filed in 1974, United States vs. AT&T, had two major issues. The first was that AT&T's relationship with Western Electric, which AT&T retained in the 1956 settlement, was illegal. The second issue ignited by MCI who was attempting to penetrate the large business market was the fact that AT&T monopolized the long distance...
As a function, ethics is a philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct, and of the rules and principles it should govern. As a system, ethics are a social, religious, or civil code of behavior considered correct by a particular group, profession, or individual. As an instrument, ethics provide perspective regarding the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, or potential outcomes. Ethical decision-making can include many types, including deontological (duty), consequentialism (including utilitarianism), and virtue ethics. Additionally, subsets of relativism, objectivism, and pluralism seek to understand the impact of moral diversity on a human level. Although distinct differences separate these ethical systems, organizations
Postal, A. (2011, March 28). Wal-Mart V. Dukes Discrimination Case: Class Action Implications Feared. National Underwriter / P&C, 115 (11), p. 24.
When faced with the issue of alleviating poverty or saving nature, many would agree with the following statement: as a society we ought to use available resources and funds to help the poor. In his article “Feeding people versus Saving Nature” Rolston opposes this position and asserts his view that there are times when we ought to choose to save nature instead of feeding the poor. I will argue in favor of Rolston’s argument and against those such as Singer, who strongly opposes the notion that preserving nature and allowing people to unnecessarily die is morally wrong. In reality there are many ways in which we can address the issue of global poverty without resorting to destroying natural ecosystems that we are dependent on.