Sodexo Mutual Agreement To Arbitrate Claims


In Mandel v.M-Q Packaging Corporation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed an action in retaliation because the applicant could not exhaust its administrative remedies. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not checked the retaliatory box in the event of recourse to the EEOC and, therefore, the EEOC representative would not have been able to investigate the allegation. The Tribunal also found that the applicant`s rights under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act were prescribed because, within 180 days of her resignation, she did not file a complaint under PHRA and the mere filing of an EEOC questionnaire did not meet the 180-day requirement. The court remanded the case in custody in order to deal with the applicant`s claims to Title VII according to the persistent doctrine of injury. In its conclusion, the Tribunal found that an applicant was not required to prove that the offences were permanent in order to establish an ongoing violation. (January 14, 2013) In Marcinczyk v. State of New Jersey Police Training Commission, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered the validity of a waiver agreement that was to execute a police recruit from the Police Academy as a condition for participation in academy training. The discharge provision stipulated that the recruit understood that the Academy posed a risk of physical or mental injury and that the recruit would not claim any rights to injury or other damage due to training. The Supreme Court held that the discharge provision was invalid because it was contrary to public policy under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, which states that a public body cannot direct the public service toward the performance of a disclaimer by the individual. (October 18, 2010) In Armenti v.

pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the Board of Claims could ever be responsible for claims arising from employment contracts with the Commonwealth. The Tribunal found that these contracts are employment contracts that are legally excluded from jurisdiction, even if they are valid for a fixed period of time and not at its convenience.

Comments are closed.