|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - January 15 - January 16, 2002
|
| |
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 99-1823,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The lower court concluded that the EEOC was precluded from seeking victim-specific relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA),, because the policy goals of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),, required giving some effect to the employee's arbitration agreement. Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,, and the ADA, whenever the EEOC chose to bring an enforcement action in a particular case, it was seeking to vindicate a public interest, not simply providing make-whole relief for the employee, even when it pursued entirely victim-specific relief. Thus, the fact that the employee had signed a mandatory arbitration agreement did not limit the remedies available to the EEOC because the text of the applicable statutes did not authorize courts to balance the competing policies of the ADA and the FAA or to second-guess the EEOC's judgment concerning which of the remedies authorized by law that it was to seek in any given case. The ADA and Title VII specifically granted the EEOC exclusive authority over the choice of forum and the prayer for relief once a charge had been filed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
United States v. Arvizu, No. 00-1519,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant, traveling with a woman and children in a minivan, was stopped by an agent on an unpaved and rarely traveled road near the United States border which was commonly used by smugglers to avoid a border patrol checkpoint. The agent determined that the unusual behavior of the occupants justified an investigatory stop, during which the agent discovered a substantial amount of drugs. The appellate court found that certain of the suspicious circumstances, evaluated in isolation, were susceptible to innocent explanations and thus insufficient to support a finding of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the investigatory stop. The United States Supreme Court held, however, that suppression of the drug evidence was not required, since the totality of the circumstances warranted the stop for further investigation of defendant's vehicle, regardless of whether the facts taken in isolation appeared innocent. It was reasonable for the agent to make commonsense inferences from his observations and his experience that defendant was attempting to avoid the checkpoint, rather than taking his family on a recreational outing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback