1.in the case of equal employment opportunity commission vs. waffle house, inc. waffle house requested a stay and a motion to compel arbitration. What was it asking for?

2.Do you agree with waffle house's argument that although the EEOC was not a party to the arbitration agreement, it is still effectively bound by it ( Justice thomas's dissent)? Or do you agree with the EEOC that waffle house is free to pursue all remedies without regard to whether an employee has signed an arbitration agreement ( justice steven's majority opinion)? Explain which position you agree with and why?

3.When baker was given the pre-employment agreement with the arbitration clause, do you think he understood what he was signing? Does it matter?

4.If baker had refused to sign the employment agreement, would he still have been hired? If he had simply struck the clause and then signed, would he have been hired?

5.Why did waffle house require the arbitration clause in its employment contracts? Why might an employee be concerned about such a clause? Why might an employee be pleased with such a clause?