Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/other/1407401-law
https://studentshare.org/other/1407401-law.
In this particular case, Jill has to prove the kind as well as the authenticity of the employment law. She has to prove that the contract itself is somehow suppressive as it strips her of her rights. She is hired as an independent contractor but the terms of the contract reflect otherwise. The contract does not want to take full responsibility for her welfare. It seems that right from the beginning, she has no rights and is supposed to abide by the rules and regulations of the contractors. Under normal circumstances, the employment laws in the federal states forbid this practice as it seeks to subdue the employees’ rights as they would not have any power to stand up for their rights.
The element of proof she must prove is the “arbitration, mediations” clause which requires her to complete this process if there is a contract dispute, and the results will be binding legally and she will waive her future rights in federal and state court to contest any employment violations. In other words, this clause implies that she has no right to contest an employment dispute. Her rights can be violated but she is not given the opportunity to take legal recourse. Indeed, the court is the highest arbiter of disputes among contracting parties but in this case, the above-mentioned clause prohibits the other party from seeking legal action against the employer. She also has to prove this element in her contract which requires her to be the key member of a client escort service whereby the clients will come from all fifty states and throughout the world. The contract is silent about this particular aspect and she was not told this during the selection process.
The damages she may seek include compensation for unfair dismissal. Indeed, she has raised an ethical issue that has been violated by this organization and they fire her when they are indicted. This is the reason why their contract has suppressive clauses to work as undercover for their insincerity in their operations. The remedies she can claim include compensation in financial terms for the services rendered. In the arbitration, I will award her the financial benefits she is entitled to until the current period. As a federal judge, I will propose that she be reinstated to her position with immediate effect if she so wishes to continue working for the organization. It can be noted that the organization that had hired her had been insincere hence the reason I would suggest that she be reinstated to her position with benefits. Raising an unethical practice against a big organization is not a crime since all organizations are expected to adhere to certain ethical considerations in their operations.