| |
| | EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. |
 | | The EEOC subsequently filed this enforcement suit, to which Baker is not a party, alleging that respondents employment practices, including Bakers discharge because of his disability, violated the ADA and that the violation was intentional and done with malice or reckless indifference. |
 | | Nevertheless, the court held that the EEOC was limited to injunctive relief and precluded from seeking victim-specific relief because the FAA policy favoring enforcement of private arbitration agreements outweighs the EEOCs right to proceed in federal court when it seeks primarily to vindicate private, rather than public, interests. |
 | | But once a charge is filed, the exact opposite is true under the ADA, which clearly makes the EEOC the master of its own case, conferring on it the authority to evaluate the strength of the public interest at stake and to determine whether public resources should be committed to the recovery of victim-specific relief. |
| straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/99-1823.ZS.html (907 words) |
|