You are once again just asserting that US law matters without citing anything, when everything I found says that exclusive jurisdiction clauses are generally valid outside of certain circumstances. The default jurisdiction for a case vs Anycolor is Japan.
She is an American contractor who works for a Japanese company. There is no American branch, no official Anycolor entity in America, everything happens in Japan.
U.S. will ALWAYS MATTER in this case because the person we are talking about is a U.S. citizen living in the United States under U.S. jurisdiction. if she does file something, she will almost certainly do it here first. Thus U.S. law will be the law of first instance. Anycolor maybe a Japanese company, but they have a clear presence in America; they have American staff, and American workers, regardless of the lack of an official subsidiary. Thus, they are subject to American law for anyone working in the United States. Once again, their bullshit contract is not a get out of jail free card. There is nothing in the contract that prevents Twisty from filing in the United States. Nothing. That clause you cited can be overturned in court, which is what she will argue.
It did, and it included a lot of stuff not related in any way to her grievances with Aster. They can argue that the suspension was for that or they can argue that they can't let someone who is subject of an investigation be too involved in business. And a slow investigation is not illegal. There is also the possibility that she didn't inform them of the entire contents of the leak and what she didn't tell them about was what was termination worthy to them.
Once again, Twisty made them aware of the leaks, and they did nothing about it. They also did not punish her until after the leaks went public. And the argument isn't that the investigation is slow. The argument is that THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION AT ALL. They did nothing about the initial allegations, and are probably still doing nothing. There is, in fact, a process that must be followed by companies in regards to sexual harassment allegations, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws designed to protect employees, and I doubt Niji did anything to follow that process. If you want more information, since we are citing AI now, use ChatGPT to ask "What are the laws that govern the process by which companies investigate sexual harassment among their staff and workers?" In fact, a slow investigation is, in and of itself, a violation of the law. Investigations for sexual harassment claims are to be
prompt, as in they begin AS SOON AS THE COMPLAINT IS MADE.
A contract is law if the law doesn't contradict it,
Which would be a legal question for the court. The thing is, we know that the contract isn't in line with the law, because we've actually read the contract in question due to it being leaked.
and an exclusive jurisdiction clause is generally enforceable.
Only if there aren't mitigating circumstances that make it unenforceable. I've already said this, as did the AI answer you already gave
Everything aside of that needs to be argued and the default jurisdiction for that argument would be the Tokyo district court, Twisty would have to argue to have the argument elsewhere, unless she lives in California or Washington State I guess, but even for those exemptions she would first have to argue that she is an employee and not a contractor. We're like five arguments deep before she can get her actual case heard.
Twisty can file in the United States and argue correct jurisdiction there. She doesn't have to go to Japan first. Then it would be up to the U.S. courts to determine if she should be exempted from the clause in her contract. If they do side with her, she never has to file in Japan at all. And yes, she would have to argue that she's an employee, not a contractor. And she should, because she is an employee, and everything about that contract makes her an employee. Niji would probably settle the suit long before it gets to that point because they don't want a court to make that decision on the record. That's another thing you keep not considering; Niji themselves have plenty of reasons for caving before this gets anywhere close to trial.
All of that is obviously true and I said so from the beginning, but the exclusive jurisdiction clause is generally enforceable
Unless the courts find otherwise.
I just said that going down the legal route is stupid since there are many hurdles and she is not guaranteed to win even if she gets American employee protections, which, I repeat myself, is not guaranteed.
Newsflash, almost nobody is guaranteed to win in court. Even many supposedly "slam dunk" cases don't turn out to be slam dunks. Its the risk of going through the legal system at all. That's not necessarily a reason not to file or seek legal recourse.
He got hit with a 15m debt to nintendo anyway despite supposedly qualify for judgement-proof.
He could have fought the charges but decided not to since he doesnt have any money for lawyers. He is then agreed to pay 30% of his income (after paying for rent) until he dies.
That was in 2024. Unless this magical "judgement proof" term was invented in 2025 (doubt it). Nijisanji could seek something similar to bowser's debt if twisty can not pay right now. If bowser cant qualify for judgement proof at the age of 54, no way twisty can at the age of 19. She has another 51 years of possible work to earn money to pay niji.
It should be made clear that this is not a good example. Nintendo were clearly being punitive in that case. In fact, I believe they tried to convince both Sony and Microsoft to join in on this case and both companies declined, because even they thought it was going too far. Nintendo wanted to make an example out of Bowser, and went above and beyond to do so in a very legally vindictive fashion.
I wonder what Legal Mindset thinks of all this?
Good question. He'd probably have a lot to say about how Nijisanji handled this.