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

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW | 1) Can an employer compel arbitration based on . virtually a forced agreement taken from a desperate : 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. 1 . 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 a ii 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. : , c 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 toIndia 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 both the District and the Circuit Courts of : ’ appeal. Thus the plaintiff did not have an opportunity . ' to present the merits of the case to the US 6th Circuit ; Court of appeals. Hence the plaintiff is filing this petition seeking granting a Writ of Certiorari. '