tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007 Status: offline
|
~FR Again... she cant sue. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Broadcast/sexy-citibank-employee-sue/story?id=10821077 quote:
Buried beneath the attention-grabbing allegations, meanwhile, is a legal detail that means a lot for many workers, not just the attractive ones: Thanks to something known as a mandatory arbitration clause, Lorenzana likely will not have her day in court. When she first began work at Citi in September 2008, the employment documents she signed included one stipulating that any employment disputes be resolved through arbitration, not in court. ............ The fact that Lorenzana essentially signed away her right to sue in court didn't come to Tuckner's attention until after they filed a lawsuit against Citi. "She had no idea that she was signing into that when she took her job," he said. It's the type of agreement, he said, that many employees will sign without a second thought as part of the flood of paperwork that comes with a new job. Makes me, again, wonder as to motive here. To be sure, i wouldnt have a lawyer who filed such a suit without doing his homework. But, if the intention was to get her attention, it worked perfectly. So a suit was filed for harrassment against Citibank, a suit that can never go to trial. Am i the only one who sees a problem with how this part was handled?
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt. RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11 Duchess of Dissent 1 Dont judge me because I sin differently than you. If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|