Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Toyota Dealership Settles Claims Manager Called Afghan-American Employees Terrorists

A Toyota dealership in California will pay $400,000 and implement training for the its management staff to settle a federal  discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity  Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that the dealer’s general manager singled out four Afghan American salesmen during a staff meeting, calling them “terrorists,” threatening to blow them up with a grenade,  and yelling and swearing at them.

After the men reported the harassment, the EEOC alleged, they faced retaliation by the car dealership, such as  additional verbal harass­ment and extra job scrutiny.  The salesmen felt they had no option other than to resign, which they did a week later, the EEOC said.  An Afghan-American manager was also fired from his job after he spoke up for the four salesmen. 

"The irony of this matter is  that, after being labeled ‘terrorists’ at our old job, most of us found work  with the U.S. military serving in Afghanistan protecting U.S. soldiers from the  terrorists," said Mohammad Sawary, one of the former employees.

Discrimination and harassment based on national origin violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   The EEOC defines national origin discrimination to include treating job applicants or employees unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).  National origin discrimination also can involve treating people unfavorably because they are married to or associated with a person of a certain national origin or because of their connection with an ethnic organization or group.

Under the terms of the settlement in this case, the dealership agreed to train all managers, post a notice regarding the lawsuit and report to the EEOC for a three-year period, in addition to paying $400,000 to the five former employees.

New York, New York

Sources:  EEOC press release and web site; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
 
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. I invite you to contact our law offices and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. I practice law and offer legal services only in jurisdictions where I am properly authorized to do so. I do not seek to represent anyone in any jurisdiction where this web site does not comply with applicable laws and bar rules.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

UNCITRAL Publishes a Digest of International Commercial Arbitration Case Law

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has published a Digest of Case Law on International Commercial Arbitration.  The Digest is available on the UNCITRAL website and in print.

The Digest is designed to identify trends in the interpretation and application of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, with the objective of promoting uniform interpretation and application.  This is accomplished by surveying and commenting on case law from more than 90 jurisdictions that have enacted the Model Law.

Information in the Digest is presented in chapters corresponding to articles of the Model Law.  Each chapter contains a synopsis of the relevant case law, a description of common views among different jurisdictions, and reports on divergent approaches.  The Digest is based on 725 cases from 37 States around the world.

The Model Law was adopted on June 21, 1985 and amended on July 7, 2006.  It provides a uniform legal framework for international commercial arbitration and is one of the most successful legal standards prepared by UNCITRAL.

New York, New York


Monday, June 4, 2012

Emergency Interim Relief Available Under Revised Swiss Rules of International Arbitration

The new Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (Swiss Rules") are in effect for all proceedings commenced after June 1, 2012.  Article 43 of the revised Swiss Rules allows a party to seek interim measures before an emergency arbitrator prior to constitution of the tribunal.

Article 26 of the Swiss Rules empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant "any interim measures it deems necessary or appropriate."  The new Article 43 goes further by authorizing an application for emergency relief before the arbitral tribunal is constituted.  Parties also retain any right they may have to seek interim measures before a judicial authority.

The party seeking emergency interim relief under Article 43 must submit an Application setting forth a "statement of the interim measure(s) sought and the reasons therefor, in particular the reason for the purported urgency."  The Application must be accompanied by comments on the language, seat of arbitration and governing law, as well as confirmation that the appropriate fees and deposits have been paid.

The Arbitration Court will appoint a sole emergency arbitrator "as soon as possible" unless there is manifestly no agreement to arbitrate or "it appears more appropriate to proceed with the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and refer the Application to it."  A party intending to challenge an emergency arbitrator must send a notice of challenge to the Secretariat within three (3) days after the circumstances giving rise to the challenge became known to that party.

The emergency arbitrator is granted discretion to conduct emergency relief proceedings "in such a manner as the emergency arbitrator considers appropriate."  The decision on the Application must be made within fifteen days.  Article 43 provides that the emergency arbitrator "shall include a determination of costs" in the decision on the Application.

John Howley
New York, New York