Mandatory arbitration rules, such as the one imposed on Luke, are not uncommon. In fact, no-complaining agreements are becoming a ubiquitous facet of business life that regulates everything from employment to the sale of used cars. In labour alone, the National Employment Lawyers Association (nela) estimates that 30 million Americans, or about one-fifth of the union-independent workforce, have been forced to sign the right to claim civil rights before a judge or jury. (The practice was recently in the spotlight when jamie Leigh Jones, a subcontractor who said she was raped by employees in Iraq, had to bring her case of sexual assault and harassment to an arbitrator hired by her employer and not by a civilian jury after the Department of Justice failed to prosecute her alleged attackers.) “breach of contract” is a legal clause describing a breach of contract or agreement that occurs when a party fails to deliver on its promises in accordance with the terms of the contract. Sometimes it is a matter of intervening in the ability of another party to carry out its duties. A contract may be violated in whole or in part. Three years later, Luke went to Atlanta for a peer-recommended training class. When she returned, the hospital fired her for “insubordination” because she had been released to take only one day off, not two. For 30 years, Luke has been an exemplary collaborator. Their personal record was full of praise for their performance; an audit three weeks before the termination, she called it a “role model.” Many of the younger white nurses Luke worked with had not taken time off, observed them and kept their jobs. As a result, Luke filed a racial and age discrimination complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc), which conducted a lengthy investigation, upheld his complaint and recommended that Luke take civil action in the Federal Court, which he did in 2003. However, the parties also argued that the reimbursement of the lineage costs, as damages, contravened the so-called “American rule”, which states that, in the absence of a particular contractual provision or applicable law, the parties bear their own legal costs to assert their contractual and other rights.
But the court also rejected this argument, because “unlike defendants in other types of prosecutions, an accused in a lawsuit in violation of a federation does not lose the advantage of a good deal without recourse, if it is prohibited to bring an action for violation against a party that violates an explicit term of a contract.”  In other words, unlike the typical offence to which the U.S. rule applies, legal fees and court costs, contrary to the typical rule to which the U.S. rule applies, are the reference for actual damages in a contract, not the costs of pursuing damages in favour of a good case because of the violation of another promised benefit. In order to circumvent the issue of confidentiality mentioned above, a standard consent order, called the Tomlin Order, is issued. The decision itself provides that the claim is suspended and that no further action can be taken in court (except for the referral of a dispute in the execution of the decision to the Tribunal, which is admissible). The order also deals with the payment of fees and payments of money outside when the money is held by the court (since these will be matters that must be dealt with by court decision). However, the actual terms of the transaction are dealt with in a “schedule” of the order, which may remain confidential.