Law

HIGH COURT RULES EEOC MAY SEEK ACTION EVEN WHEN WORKER SIGNS ARBITRATION PACT

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court made it a bit harder for employers to keep
discrimination cases out of court.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, said the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission may pursue legal relief such as back pay and reinstatement even
when a worker has agreed to resolve workplace disputes through binding
arbitration. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that
a binding arbitration agreement between an employer and employee doesn't
preclude the EEOC from independently pursuing its "statutory function or
the remedies that are otherwise available."

The ruling won't have much of a direct impact on the workplace, though. The
EEOC "chooses to file suit in response to only a small number of the many
charges received each year," according to a footnote in Tuesday's opinion.

Still, said Stephen Bokat, senior vice president and general counsel of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, "In the right case, this decision provides an
avenue around arbitration agreements."

The ruling ends a run of pro-arbitration decisions issued by the high court
last year. The court ruled that the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act covers a
broad range of employment contracts, and, in a second case, rejected a
homeowner's claim that the prospect of high arbitration fees voids a
binding-arbitration agreement.

Tuesday's case involves Eric Baker, who signed a binding-arbitration
agreement when he went to work for a Waffle House Inc. restaurant in
Columbia, S.C., in August 1994. Less than a month after he was hired, Mr.
Baker, who had a seizure disorder, suffered a seizure at work. He was fired
shortly thereafter. He filed a complaint with the EEOC, claiming a
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Supreme Court overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, which said, in part, that the EEOC was
barred from seeking court relief such as back pay because that wouldn't
give enough deference to the arbitration process. Justice Stevens noted
that the EEOC isn't a party to the arbitration agreement. "Accordingly, the
pro-arbitration policy goals of the FAA do not require the agency to
relinquish its statutory authority if it has not agreed to do so," he wrote.

Dissenting were Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and
Justice Clarence Thomas, who chaired the EEOC during the Reagan
administration. Referring to the arbitration agreement Mr. Baker had
signed, "I cannot agree that the EEOC may do on behalf of an employee that
which an employee has agreed not to do for himself," Justice Thomas wrote
for the dissenters. (EEOC vs. Waffle House)

In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an Arizona
man's constitutional rights weren't violated when his car was stopped and
searched by a border patrol officer who thought he was acting suspiciously.
The decision likely will bolster the administration's antiterrorism efforts
to tighten monitoring of individuals whom they suspect might be involved in
illegal activities.

The man, Ralph Arvizu, had been driving his van along a back road often
used by smugglers to evade border guards. Agent Clinton Stoddard pulled him
over when he detected what he considered suspicious actions by Mr. Arvizu.
After receiving Mr. Arvizu's permission to search the van, Agent Stoddard
discovered 128 pounds of marijuana. Mr. Arvizu was arrested.

A U.S. district court denied Mr. Arvizu's motion to suppress the evidence
on grounds that his Fourth Amendment right barring unreasonable search and
seizure had been violated. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, in San Francisco, reversed. Tuesday, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote
that while each of Mr. Arvizu's actions, such as not looking directly at
Mr. Stoddard as he drove by, could be interpreted as innocent behavior,
"taken together, we believe they sufficed to form a particularized and
objective basis" for stopping the van. (U.S. vs. Arvizu)

In a separate, unanimous ruling, the high court said that Chicago's process
for deciding which groups may be granted a permit to hold demonstrations
and other events in city parks doesn't violate the First Amendment.

The case was brought by the Windy City Hemp Development Board, which wanted
to hold a rally in support of legalization of marijuana. The group had
applied for permission several times, and had been granted some of the
needed permits and denied others. The group sued the city park authorities
claiming that the permit process violated its free-speech rights. But the
group lost in the U.S. district and appeals courts.

Justice Scalia, writing for the high court, said the license system doesn't
"pass judgment on the content of speech," and therefore doesn't violate
First Amendment rights. (Thomas, et al. vs. Chicago)