Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
The Federal Arbitration Act is discussed in this 3 page paper. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp is the focus of this paper. How the case changed the meaning of the act is addressed. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: RT13_SA724Gil.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements that had existed at English common law and had been adopted by American courts, and to place arbitration agreements on the same footing as
other contracts" (" Equal Opportunity Employment Commission," 2002). This was an act that was passed early in the twentieth century but went through changes during the decades that followed. For
some time, it had been believed that the Federal Arbitration Act was not relevant as it respects statutory employment claims (Elkouri, Elkouri & Ruben, 2003). One case-Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane
Corp.-- changed all that (Elkouri, Elkouri & Ruben, 2003). In Gilmer, the court had rejected the argument that arbitration was not adequate to protect statutory rights (Elkouri, Elkouri &
Ruben, 2003). In essence, Gilmer strengthened the arbitration act. After this case was heard, it would be more difficult to make a case to exclude arbitration in many areas of
employment law. In some way, the Supreme Court acted to expand the original purpose of the act. The act was meant to make sure that arbitration is taken seriously, but
it was not intended to replace law, or prohibit other avenues of complaint. In some sense then, Gilmer expanded the meaning of the law and made arbitration significantly stronger. In
an interpretation, the ADR Institute explains the effect of Gilmer this way: "Compulsory arbitration does not deprive claimants of an adequate judicial forum. Arbitration can provide competent, conscientious, and
impartial arbitrators while resulting in a wide range of judicially enforceable resolutions, which are consistent with the statutory scheme" ("ADR Institute," 2007). In Gilmer, this idea is explicitly stated and
appears as follows: "....out-of-court dispute resolution is consistent with the statutory scheme" ("GILMER v. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP.," 1991). In essence, Gilmer made sure that arbitration sticks. This is not inconsistent
...