SCOTUS to Rule on Union: Could be "Radical" Change

It's used quite often all over the state.

 

I know the elements of unconscionability. Again, it depends on your hypo. If employee "x" is performing well at other aspects of his job and employer intends to enforce a provision requiring him to join some organization as the basis for termination, I think you have no chance at all of that being enforced by the Court. None.

 

Where do you get the idea there are no jury trial rights in chancery court?

 

So the term requiring membership is, out of necessity, what makes it unconscionable?

 

In probate matters. I'm wrong about civil cases where they have concurrent jurisdiction with circuit. That's my mistake. Where did you get the idea that Circuit courts aren't used for criminal matters?

 

If that's the sole basis for your termination of the agreement, it will not withstand a challenge.

 

And, I still don't think a purely equitable cause of action carries a right to jury trial in Tennessee.

 

Based on what? Unconscionability? If so, which type and how does it fit the elements?

 

Of course. I mean you don't get a jury when you try to get an injunction. But you can get an injunction in Circuit.

 

According to my, admittedly limited, understanding of contract law, there would be procedural unconscionability because of the lack of meaningful choice, which would require proof of the vast difference in bargaining positions as to employee vs. employer. And there would be substantive unconscionability because making you join a gym or a golf club or some other type of membership is unduly harsh and probably against public policy to fire employees on that basis. So, that would be my argument, and I'm also quite sure that there are other equitable causes of action that fit this scenario possibly better than unconscionability, but I don't have the motivation to actually do research on this.

 

True.

 

That is fair - as I have said there are going to be exceptions, obviously.
But the point is that unconscionability and/or other equitable remedies are not going to be found simply because there is a clause to join something. It just like other clauses that are allowed - arbitration agreements, pay schemes, no smoking clauses, etc. Those are all allowed although they may be disallowed if there is something else within the bargaining or agreement itself that raises issues that may require equitable relief.
There is nothing per se unconscionable about an arbitration agreement just as there is nothing per se unconscionable about an agreement to join an organization.

 

I'm just waiting for Matlock to get the real killer to admit it under oath on the witness stand in this thread. That and Tyler Hudson, Conrad McMasters and/or Cliff Lewis getting in trouble while investigating the case. Are either of you (Law or Rev) wearing a blue leisure type looking suit right now?