1) Can an employer compel arbitration based on
virtually a forced agreement taken from a desperate
employment-applicant at the hiring stage, who has no
option to deny signing such agreement if he needs the
job; and does any such agreement not deny him/her the
fundamental right to approach a Court of law, even in
cases covering issues involving public policy violation
by corporations designing, developing, manufacturing
and selling defective products like airplane engines for
use by innocent consumers/users? This issue
concerning "forcing arbitration " also arises in
additional no compete agreements also taken by some
employers and fine print agreements taken by owners
of internet websites while accessing online
information.

2) In this case, the US District Court ordered
arbitration of Ohio State law claims which included
retaliation for both Public Policy Violation (Greeley
Act) and age discrimination covered by OCRA.
However, the latter issue was not considered in
deposition and discussion during arbitration as it was
thought to be similar to the discrimination covered by
Title VII, which was stayed.

Greeley act part of the case can be split into two parts,
one covering manufacturing and selling defective
product and the other covering discrimination faced by
the employee during the process of designing and
developing the product. The discrimination
perpetrated to the employee, when he rightly identified
serious flaws in the process of designing and developing
airplane engines without an ability to sense fuel leak
directly and shut the engine off in case leak occurs, is
covered by OCRA & Title VII. Hence a question arises
whether the Greeley act part of the case can be .
arbitrated at all?

Further, in this case, the Age Discrimination part was
not considered at all both in arbitration and by the US
District Court as the Court opined that the amended
complaint did not invoke ADEA, although OCRA was
invoked and it covers age discrimination also.

3) The US 6th Circuit Court of appeals dismissed the
appeal as filed untimely. The plaintiff had to defend the
Summary Judgment Motion of his case filed on 3/22/13,
as a Party-in-Person and submitted his 2nd rebuttal on
6/6/2018. Afterwards, he left for India after informing
the Court. Unfortunately, he saw the judgment of
3/6/19 for the 1st time on the Pacer website only on
3/29/19. He did not know the procedure and time
requirements for filing an appeal and filed a notice of
appeal on 4/15/19 instead of seeking time for extension
to file an appeal.

In the petitioner's view, as a layman, the notice of order
entry was not served (received by the petitioner) per
rule 77(d) of the Federal rules of Civil procedure, as the
US District Court knew about his possible trip to India
and postal mailing to his residential address in USA
was not sufficient to ensure receipt of order entry by the
petitioner. Since the petitioner did not have ECF access
and permission, viewing order entry on a website
cannot be treated as fulfilling service of order entry.
Although ignorance is not an excuse, it could be
considered as a good cause for condonation of delay.
However, his request for condonation of delay was
rejected by

Can an employer compel arbitration based on a forced agreement taken at the hiring stage?