Employment Law

Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Employment Law
“Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange, 609 F.3d 191 (2010)”
INTRODUCTION
The case was argued on the 1st of December 2009 while the opinion was filed on 15 June, 2010 (“Nino v. Jewelry Exchange, Inc.”). The case involved the employment law and raised issues relating to the court’s application of judgment in employment-related issues
FACTS OF THE CASE
Rajae Nino, the appellant in the case, brought a suit for gender-related and discrimination of his national origin perpetrated by the employer, “The Jewelry Exchange.” After seeking the district court settlement for fifteen months, Nino’s case was yet to be determined (“Nino v. Jewelry Exchange, Inc.”). The defendant invoked a provision in the employment contract of Nino and then moved to the district court to force the parties to address the dispute. Nino rejected the move since the arbitration agreement was conducted unconsciously and thus, could not be enforced. However, the court district court affirmed the actions of the defendant upon which Nino sought an appeal.
LEGAL ISSUES
What constitutes a gender discrimination?
Can a party compel an arbitration in court in unconscionably?
The extent and duration of the non-merits practice motion that occurred during the period the case was filed.
In answering the above questions, the court had to determine the extent in which the parties were aware of the idea to bring an arbitration as well as the contract terms of the employment to rule out the idea of discrimination.

RULES USED BY THE COURT
The court relied on the principle of unconscionability as defined in the laws of the Virgin Islands as well as the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) which guides the use of arbitration in solving disputes (“Nino v. Jewelry Exchange, Inc.”).
APPLICATION OF THE FACTS
The idea of gender discrimination was not clearly identified in the case as there were compelling issues to use in making the final determination. Although the FAA allows dispute resolution through the use of arbitration, the fifteen months that lapsed when the complaint brought a case before the district court and the period the arbitration was filed without the knowledge of Nino was enough proof of the biases against the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
The appeal court ruled in favor of Nino on the basis of the rules relating to unconscionability. Thus, the decision of the district court was overturned on the basis of unconscionability principle and lack of merit by the conduct of the defendant.
This case is important to the employment law since it stipulates what the employers can and cannot do. It implies that employers have a right to involve their workers in any matters of dispute resolution but also raises critical concerns regarding how lower rank courts decide such matters.
Work Cited
Nino v. Jewelry Exchange, Inc., 609 F.3d 191 (3rd Cir. 2010)