Week 1 Discussion Assignment – 2 Parts Due 11:59pm Friday Part 1 – Choose one part of the assigned textbook question to answer Part 2 – Choose ONE of the options [pic] Part 1 – Choose one part of the assigned textbook question to answer An important concept this week is jurisdiction. As the text explains, a court must have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case. Subject matter jurisdiction is rather straight forward – the court must have jurisdic tion to hear the particular type of dispute (see my video for further explanation of this concept).
Now look at Question 2 (p. 71) and pick either b, c, or d to answer. Explain your answer using legal terms and concepts from this week’s readings. (b) Paula, who lives in New York City, wants to sue Dizzy Movie Theatres, whose principal place of business is Dallas. She claims that while she was in Texas on holiday, she was injured by their negligent maintenance of a stairway. She claims damages of $30,000. The general trial court of Texas would have sole jurisdiction. There is no federal court diversity jurisdiction because the amount in dispute is less than $75,000. Top of Form
Part 2 – choose ONE of the options Choice #1 Mandatory Arbitration Read the Mandatory Arbitration section (p. 45) and the supplemental materials provided: Link to Letter to Congress and Arbitration Fairness Act (Proposed), then consider the following hypothetical: Let’s suppose you are the CEO and majority shareholder of FacTree, a small manufacturer of artificial trees and flowers. FacTree has about 100 workers who do the routine assembly work for pay ranging from $8 per hour to $15 per hour. They work in two shifts. There are about a dozen supervisors who versee their work. In the past few years there have been five employment lawsuits: three concerned sexual harassment and two concerned discrimination in promotion. All five settled before trial. For three of the suits the company’s attorney fees were over $50,000 per suit. For one of the claims, the company paid $250,000 in damages to the employee. Consequently, you are considering mandatory arbitration for all employment disputes. Discuss whether you had ever considered that mandatory arbitration clauses were included in so many of your contracts.
Do you agree with imposing theses clauses in so many types of contracts and without negotiation or discussion/notice? Does your opinion differ as the small business owner in the hypothetical above? Explain whether you would or would not impose mandatory arbitration and whether the proposed legislation impacts your decision. Minimum 2 paragraphs. Choice #1 Mandatory Arbitration I was not aware of this term prior to this assignment, now that I’m learning the meaning of the term “Mandatory Arbitration”, I’m not surprised at all that they are present in so many contracts.
Business owners and corporations have the knowledge and know how to always keep the upper hand on consumers. Every contract or agreement that we come across contains sneaky little fine print. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS GENERALLY PROTECT ONLY AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL ACTS. We’re all guilty of not taking the time to read the fine print. To the point of this hypothetical scenario, although I don’t agree with the concept of Mandatory Arbitration as a private system of justice because it prevents people from exercising their legal right to take a company to court and have their dispute judged on all the available evidence.
If I were this CEO, I would use a mandatory arbitration clause as protection for my business. I think the proposed legislation is a fair proposition under the bill, parties involved in a dispute would be allowed a choice between arbitration or a court action when pursuing a complaint. THE CONSTITUION IS A SERIES OF COMPROMISES ABOUT POWER. Choice #2 First Amendment: Free Speech On March 1, 2006, this story appeared in the media: Americans apparently know more about The Simpsons than they do about the First Amendment. Far more Americans can identify Lisa, Marge, Maggie, Homer, and Bart than the First Amendment freedoms.
Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. ) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey.  Considering this and the Texas v. Johnson case (p. 110): General Question: With whom do you agree? Explain. Questions for those who agree that the First Amendment protects flag burning: • Isn’t it very painful for veterans of foreign wars, some permanently disabled, to see someone burn the flag that they fought for? Did Johnson contribute any valuable ideas when he burned the flag? • If he contributed nothing, why should a state be forced to permit his actions? • If the majority of a state’s citizens want to outlaw flag burning, why shouldn’t they be allowed to? Questions for those who argue that the First Amendment does not protect flag burning: • If a state could outlaw flag burning, could it also outlaw burning a copy of the Constitution? A photograph of the flag? A cross? A photograph of the President? • Even if some people regard the flag as special, why should their opinion be the law of the land? Doesn’t the anger created by flag burning indicate that it is effective speech? Should we outlaw effective speech and permit only speech that offends no one? Minimum 2 paragraphs and incorporate 2 different terms/phrases from this week’s constitutional reading (in all CAPS). [pic]  “Study: More know ‘The Simpsons’ than First Amendment rights,” The USA Today, Mar 1, 2006 http://www. usatoday. com/news/nation/2006-03-01-freedom-poll_x. htm; Simpsons ‘trump, First Amendment, BBC News, Mar 1, 2006 http://news. bbc. co. uk/2/hi/americas/4761294. stm