Need help summarizing text explaining the Disputes between individuals and organizations

putes Between Individuals and Organizations Disputes between individuals and organizations may take place over a variety ofissues, many of which may be included in four general categories: (1) disputes over property and money (economic disputes); (2) claims for damages and restitution; (3) issues of civil rights; and (4) disputes concerning organizational actions, procedures, and policy. These broad categories of disputes are, of course, not mutually exclusive. Usually, organizations are plaintiffs in the rst category of disputes and defendants in the other three. In general, organizations are more successful as both plaintiffs and defendants than are individuals (Galanter, 1975; Relis, 2002). They enjoy greater success against individual antagonists than against other organizations. individuals fare less well contending against organizations than against other individuals. Consider, for example, that while \"Wal-Mart is sued two to ve times every business day somewhere in the United States in federal court alone,\" in the vast majority of cases (no exact numbers are available), \\Val-Mart wins by aggressively ghting cases even when it would be cheaper for the company to settle (WalMart Litigation Project, 2017). As this example suggests, when individuals bring lawsuits against organizations, the latter have a considerable advantage due to their wealth and legal resources. Despite the supposed impartiality of the courts, David normally has little chance of defeating Goliath in a courtroom. Although organizations have a greater chalice of winning and a higher frequency of initiating lawsuits. it does not mean that individuals do not sue organizations (see. for example, Hellman, 2004). On the contrary, individuals are increasingly taking their disputes with organizations to court. For example, when TorontOeDominion Bank introduced a mandatory drugetesting policy for both newly hired and returning employees in 1990. the screening of employees for drug use was presented as an attempt to \"maintain a safe, healthy and productive workforce, to safeguard bank and customer funds and information and to protect the bank's policy" (Schmidt, 20011A1). Nevertheless, a complaint was led with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that alleged that the policy constituted discrimination on the basis of disability (dened as \"any previous or existing mental or physical disability and includes disfigurement and previous or existing dependence on alcohol or a drug\"). Although a Canadian Human Rights tribunal initially issued a nding of non- discrimination. a federal Court of Appeal later ruled that the policy did constitute \"adverse-efect discrimination\" (Canada [Human Rights Comm.] v. Toronto Dominion Bank [1996]). As dened by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ont. Human Rights Comm. v. SimpsanseSears (1985, at 18), adverseeeffecl discrimination refers to \"a rule that is neutral on its face but has an adverse discriminatory effect on certain members of the group to whom it applies.\" In consequence the policy was found to be in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act because it could discriminate against certain employees and because it was not sufciently related to job performance. A similar decision was reached in relation to Imperial Oil's drug and alcohol testing policy for \"safety-sensitive" positions Within that company. In 1992, four employees of Imperial Oil led complaints of discrimination with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. One of the complainants maintained lhat, cespite giving up alcohol eight years earlier and participating in a company saonsored substance-abuse program, he had been demoted as a result of the policy. The Ontario Human Rights Commission later ruled that, under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alcoholism is a handicap protected from ciseriminalion and that the employer has the duty to accommodate the employee. The Commission ordered Imperial Oil to reinstate the employee in his \"safety-sensitive" position and awarded the complainant $21,241 in camages.When Imperial Oil appealed this decision. the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in July 2000 that Imperial Oil's use of both a preecmploymcnt crug testing screening test and random drug testing for employees was iscriminatory and in Violation of the province's human rights code. The court held that a breathalyzer is permissible for people in high-risk jobs, such as oil renery workers, pilots, and train engineers, because it determines whether someone is impaired at the moment the test is administered. Since drug testing only measures past use, not present impairment or future impairment on the job, the court ruled that imperial Oil could not justify preemployment testing or random drug testing for employees (Entrop in Imperial Oil Ltd., [2000]). After losing its court case. Imperial Oil introduced random saliva testing in 2003 and unionized workers, in turn, challenged this practice. In imperial Oil Limited v. Communications, Energy 6': Paperworkers Union ofCanacla, Local 900 (2009), the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Imperial Oil's random drug testing measures infringed a collective agreement provision which required that they treat their employees with urespect and dignity\" and breached the company's obligation \"to respect an employee's expectation of privacy absent consent to or reasonable cause for a random drug test\" (at 72). According to this judgement. "companies cannot, Without reasonable cause, require random saliva moutheswab drug tests from their unionized workers who perform safeWesensitive jobs\" (Dranoff, 20 11:04). More recently, in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper Lid. (2013), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that an employer's implementation of random drug and alcohol testing is not automatically justied even in inherently dangerous work environments. It found that the employer had exceeded the scope of its rights by unilaterally imposing random testing without evidence that alcohol or drug use was a problem in the workplace. The Court ruled that "even in a none unionized workplace, an employer must justify the intrusion on privacy resulting from random testing by reference to the particular risks in a particular workplace\" (at 20). The Court also provided guidance on the standard that employers must meet in order to subject their employees to these types oftests. In Re Mechanical Contractors Association Samia v. UA Local 663 (2014), these principles were extended to prefernployment testing, with the arbitrator emphasizing that a positive test prior to hiring is not a valid predictor of future workplace impairment and rejecting the employer's attempt to establish the need for drugtesting by \"broad-based statistical inferential reasoning\" (e.g., extrapolations from regional drug/alcohol use; correlations between preeemployment testing and a reduction in posteincident tests). In Sunror Energy Inc, v, Umfor Local 707A (2016), the Alberta Court of (greens Bench addressed the evidentiary burden that an employer must meet to justify the implementation of a universal random drug and alcohol testing policy. it ruled that an employer must demonstrate both that the setting is a dangerous workplace and that a general problem with drug and/or alcohol abuse exists in that workplace. For the remainder of this section, we shall consider disputes initiated by individuals and organizations separately. For the former, we shall illustrate the use of law as a method of dispute resolution in academe, and. for the latter, we shall discuss the use of courts as collection agencies in the field of consumer credit. Law as a Method of Dispute Resolution in Academe As we move further into the 21st century, law remains a potent force in institutions of higher learning (Alexander and Alexander, 2017; Gerstein and Gerstein, 2007; Oppenheimer, 2006) and is becoming more pronounced at all other levels of education (Bissonet'te, 2009; Essex, 2009). More and more, disputes that develop in school settings are resolved elsewhere, as students, educators, and institutions become litigants in steadily growing numbers (Gajda, 2010). We will briey consider law as a method of dispute resolution in academe in the context of facultyadministration, studentfaculty, and student administration relations. The facultyadministration relationship in post-secondary institutions is dened by an increasingly complex web of legal principles and authorities. The essence of this relationship is contract law, but \"that core is encircled by expanding layers oflabour relations law, employment law, human rights law and, in public institutions. constitutional law and public employment statutes and regulations\" (Kaplin and Lee, 2006:159). The growth in the number and variety of laws and regulations governing facultyadministration relations provides a fertile ground for grievances and coincides with an increase in the number of lawsuits stemming from that relationship (Brake, 2010; Hunter, 2006; Nelson, 2010; Sataline, 2007). Many legal disputes centre on the meaning and interpretation of the faculty institution contract. Depending on the institution, a contract may vary from a basic notice of appointment to a complex collective bargaining agreement negotiated under labour laws. In some instances, the formal document does not encompass all the terms of the contract, and other terms are included through \"incorporation by reference\"that is, by referring to other documents. such as the faculty handbook, or even to past custom and usage at an institution. in the context of contract interpretation, legal disputes arise most often in the context of contract termination and due notice for such