Assignment task:
Part I: Please responds INDEPTH to the discussion question below using and citing scholarly references in APA format AND text author reference: Moran, J. J. (2014). Employment law: new challenges in the business environment (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Howard Saari was employed by Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc., as an account executive beginning in July 1988. He alleges that his work was satisfactory at all times. According to Saari's complaint, on or about December 14, 1988, a "sum of money, supposedly belonging to a client of Smith Barney, was supposedly stolen from the desk of a Smith Barney employee." Saari alleged he was questioned about the theft and was later asked to take a polygraph test concerning the incident, which he refused. Saari claims he was then terminated for his refusal to take the polygraph examination. Saari became a registered representative of the NYSE and thereby subject to its Rule 347, which provides that "Any controversy between a registered representative and any member or member organization arising out of the employment or termination of employment of such registered representative by and with such member or member organization shall be settled by arbitration." Saari contends that the enforcement provisions of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act show no such flexibility.
Question: Is the arbitration requirement in violation of the EPPA? Explain In Depth. Need Assignment Help?
Part II: Please respond to the 2peers' questions using the above discussion info regarding the Employer-Employer Relationship: Cite 2 additional scholarly references in APA format
HH..Under the EPPA it states that employers are not allowed to mandate or request a polygraph test or lie detector test for pre-employment or during-employment purposes (Employee Polygraph Protection Act, n.d.). According to Saari, he was wrongfully accused and therefore terminated on the refusal of a polygraph test. This would violate the EPPA, which again does not allow an employer to mandate or request a polygraph test. Once Saari was terminated from his employment, becoming a member of the NYSE helped contest the rule of arbitration. Rule 347 as an NYSE member "provides that arbitration of any controversy arising out of a representative's employment or unemployment" (Gilmer V. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), n.d.).
Looking into the overall case that Saari can provide, he has a reasonable argument that arbitration needs to be the dispute resolution. With arbitration, it provides an agreed-upon individual who acts as a private judge, this person must be agreed upon by both parties to act as the arbitrator (Moran, 2014). Following, they will then dispute the issues between them and the arbitrator will then decide who is correct or incorrect on their part. Saari can argue the claim that no true evidence was formed against him and the refusal for a polygraph which again is protected by the EPPA was the cause of the termination.
In conclusion, the arbitration requirement does not violate the EPPA. Saari against Smith Barney Co. still has the case to have an arbitrational agreement, although there was no agreement set before or signed before the agreement. If Saari can contest with arbitration and provide the effects of the NYSE rule 347 along with the EPPA regulations, there should be a substantial argument allowing him to proceed further with employment or an arbitration award.
References:
Employee Polygraph Protection Act. (n.d.). DOL.
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991). (n.d.). Justia Law.
Moran, J. J. (2014). Employment Law (6th ed.). Pearson Education (US).
LP...Under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), employers are barred from suggesting or requiring employees to take a lie detector test, and cannot use the results of such tests in most scenarios. Moran (2014) explains that a lie detector includes any device like polygraphs, voice-stress analyzers, or similar tools used to assess honesty. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) creates certain protections for employees related to the use of polygraph tests.
Based on this information, it appears that the arbitration requirement itself is not inherently in violation of the EPPA (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). However, the EPPA does prohibit employers from taking adverse actions against employees who refuse to take a polygraph test (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d). If the termination was solely because of Howard Saari's refusal to take the polygraph test, that action itself would likely be in violation of the EPPA.
In this specific scenario, the arbitration requirement from NYSE Rule 347 does not override the protections provided by the EPPA (Moran, 2014). Howard Saari might say that his EPPA rights should be upheld in court and not through arbitration, even though his job agreement says disputes go to arbitration.
References:
Moran, J.J. (2014). Employment law: new challenges in the business environment. (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson.
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) (Fact Sheet #36).
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Lie detector tests and the workplace: Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA).