Giving up your rights for a JOB?

[J Rich]

I have recently started the hunt for new employment. I have a job and am about at the end of my rope with It. I know I am truely blessed to still have my job through out this economy. Anyhow I filled out an online application with a rather large well known company and I'm sure every member of this forum has had their product at one time or another.

Now the position I applied for is on the lower end of the Commercial side of this company. Which means I'll be in the weather, inside, heavy lifting, getting dirty. Not sure what the year pay is i'm guessing in the 40k's. I the passed I have signed for random drug screens, polygraphs, and this of that nature.

This company wants me to waive my right to a jury trial. Here is a copy and paste of some of this waiver.

It's not a glamorous job. What do you think?



. In some very limited situations,
however, employment disputes regarding legally protected rights may arise that require the
assistance of a third party to resolve. These types of disputes typically involve alleged violations of
federal, state, or local statutes or involve other legal claims that relate to the employment
relationship. Some examples include claims alleging discrimination, harassment, interference or
retaliation; claims alleging unpaid wages or compensation (such as unequal pay, overtime pay,
bonuses or commissions); or other types of claims relating to wrongful or illegal discharge, other
adverse employment action, or any injury relating to the terms or conditions of employment.
The litigation of a dispute before a jury can be expensive, time consuming, destructive of
otherwise amicable relationships, and distracting to everyone. With the intent of simplifying the
process and minimizing the expense and time involved, both ********* and the associate agree that
in the event they initiate or become parties to any litigation related to the associate’s employment,
the dispute will be decided by a judge, not a jury.

 

[max]

I have seen it before, probably pretty standard.

 

[gregintenn]

I'd sign it.

 

[arjay]

I would take judge over a jury any time.
Edit: I really doubt that they could hold you to this.

 

[Hammerless-12]

Depends on just how bad I wanted the job. The company probably has had problems of this nature before and/or just an attempt to cover their concerns legally. I personally think I would rather have a jury trial as many judges in the area may be in the companies pocket so to speak. At any rate good luck.

 

[A10]

So, if they wrongfully fire you and you elect to go to a jury, what will they do, fire you? I'd probably sign it, chances are there won't be any problems, and they are probably required to do something like this by their insurance underwriters. Jurys have a tendency to award unrealistic settlements that could close the business down.

 

[RightArm]

I'd like to hear what one of our resident lawyers has to say, but I don't think they could hold you to it either. I'd sign it and forget it. It's not as if they're trying to say you're not allowed to have a disputed.

 

[jkc]

Sounds like they're unwilling to risk rolling the dice with a panel of people too stupid to weasel out of jury duty, which is probably in your interest as well. At least, one would hope that a judge would leave emotions out of his deliberations and make a determination based only on the facts in evidence, something a jury can't necessarily be trusted to do.

 

[GKC]

I spent almost 30 years working in corporate HR at a Fortune 100 company, and I've never seen a clause like that. We did have a clause that stipulated internal grievances would be submitted to arbitration, but there no mention of any external action of issues of litigation, especially not criminal actions. (I retired in 2004, though, so this may have become common practice, and I haven't kept up with the industry standards.)

The downside to signing something like this (and I am not an attorney, so this is just my opinion) is that if you do later decide you want a jury trial, and you have signed this article of agreement, then you may have to sue and bring that before a judge to have it set aside...and that could get expensive. On the other hand, if you don't sign it, the company probably won't hire you.

Your recourse then would be to sue them for discrimination and/or unfair/illegal employment practices. This will not only be expensive but probably won't be determined to be discrimination, as long as they apply this standard equally to all applicants. You might prevail on the illegal employment practices claim, but you will be fighting that battle for several years. It's hard to imagine that a company of any size wouldn't have legal advice before implementing something like that. I can't remember if Georgia is an employment at will state, but if it is, employers have more latitude in hiring and firing practices, as long as they are consistent.

 

[BaldEagle1313]

To my way of thinking that's no different than when you get laid off you get the severance package only if you sign a waiver stating you won't sue for wrongful termination. I've had to do that twice.

 

[GKC]

At least, one would hope that a judge would leave emotions out of his deliberations and make a determination based only on the facts in evidence, something a jury can't necessarily be trusted to do.

That is exactly what many plaintiffs want to have happen...they want a jury to sympathize with them, ignore the law, and rule in their favor. A judge will be much more unlikely to rule contrary to case law, even if he sympathizes...so sometimes it is better to roll the dice and take your chances with a jury, especially if you are a going up against a corporation in a downturned economy.

 

[GKC]

To my way of thinking that's no different than when you get laid off you get the severance package only if you sign a waiver stating you won't sue for wrongful termination. I've had to do that twice.

The difference is, and we did have this clause, is that severance pay is an optional benefit the company provides, and they can pay it or not. The clause the OP is raising here seems to be requiring a waiver of a fundamental right to trial by jury in order to be hired.

 

[gregintenn]

I don't have a history of ending up in court with my employer. Do you?

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

My experience-and mind you it's only been 30 years- is that there are MANY more instances of a plaintiff getting lowballed or screwed by a jury than the other way around. If I am afraid of a home cooking judge than the jury ain't gonna be much better and I'll file in Federal Court over state court. I' saw a jury award es zero with legitimate injuries with legitimate damages because the plaintiff was tattooed and married to a black man All plaintiffs are not ward and June Cleaver nor di they live up to the deserving stereotype that juries have. I have NEVER asked for a jury in my 30 years of practicing-it is always the defendant that asks for the jury, anf you know why? because every time a jury goes wild the insurance industry has the resources to plaster it all over and scream law suit reform, but the poor ******* that gets stiffed because he looks funny or out of mainstream doesn't have the resources to scream out on TV about his abuse from the system.
Bottom line, I think the clause is unenforceable but if I ever sued my employer, it would be before a judge in Federal Court.

 

[J Rich]

Good enough. I just don't like these big companies that spend tons of dollars trying to find ways to screw the working man. We'll see where it goes.

Thanks joe

 

[StatesRightist]

Caje's advice is excellent. I was involved in a series of lawsuits against a former employer that had these types of the clauses, non-competes, stating it had to be tried in X state etc. The plaintiffs took it to Federal Court and the employer was quickly told none of that drivel was enforceable, federal labor law applied and kiss your butt goodbye. My experience mirrors Caje's advice, though it's no where as diverse or lengthy as his.

 

[charlie sherrill]

Go ahead and sign it and hope the boss doesn't play golf with the judge. Do you know what they call a bad lawyer? Your honor.

 

[H Richard]

I believe it would be unenforceable as "signed under duress". If it makes the company feel good, do it to get the job (if the job is worth it). The odds of it being meaningful are very slim.

 

[steveno]

what is in the company's background that would require a statement like that?

 

[charlie sherrill]

I once saw a jury aquit a man charged with rape because the victim had a history of herpes in her medical report. The prosecution objected and objection was upheld but you could see the jurors faces and know the trial was over even though the judge told them to disregard.