New Guidance from State and Federal Courts for Employers Who Require Arbitration of Employment Disputes

There is an on-going debate in the field of employment discrimination law as to whether an employer can require an employee to take a discrimination claim to arbitration rather than filing a lawsuit. A recent decision of the Connecticut Superior Court at Hartford in the case of Grose v. Didi, LLC gives some guidance on the necessary ingredients for a valid arbitration agreement.

The case involved a former employee who filed an age discrimination claim in Superior Court.  The employer filed a motion asking the Court to compel the plaintiff to participate in arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement that had been signed by the employee and the employer’s president, and to stay (that is, postpone) the court proceedings until the arbitration occurred.  The Court found that the arbitration agreement was valid, and granted the motion.

The Court started with a finding that Connecticut has a clear public policy in favor of arbitration. The plaintiff argued that nevertheless the arbitration agreement was not a valid contract because she had been told approximately a year and a half after starting her employment that she must sign the arbitration agreement or be fired.  She also argued that the agreement was unconscionable; that is, fundamentally one-sided and unfair. However, the Court ruled that because the plaintiff was an employee at will and could be fired at any time, the fact that the employer refrained from firing her at that particular time was a benefit to her.  Moreover, she expressly consented to the arbitration agreement by signing it.  Finally, the employer was also binding itself to participate in arbitration, so the obligation was mutual.

The Court also decided that the agreement was not unconscionable because the choice of arbitrator was by mutual agreement, not by a unilateral imposition by the employer, and because the employer would pay the arbitrator’s filing fees and costs, subject only to a contribution from the employee in an amount equal to the court filing fee (currently $360).  The Court stayed the lawsuit and ordered the employee to arbitrate her claims.

Note that this lawsuit was stayed shortly after it was commenced.  As a general proposition, lawsuits stayed in favor of arbitration are subject to dismissal after the arbitration is concluded and the arbitration award is confirmed by a court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also recently weighed in on employment arbitration agreements, holding that employment agreements requiring disputes to be resolved by individual arbitration (as opposed to class action arbitration) are enforceable. These provisions are often called “class action waivers,” since the employee gives up the right to bring or participate in a class action in arbitration.  In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Court determined that under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), courts must enforce agreements to arbitrate according to their terms, including terms mandating individualized proceedings, and that while the FAA recognizes defenses that apply to contracts generally (e.g, fraud, duress, unconscionability), those defenses did not apply to the agreements under the Court’s review.

In light of these decisions, Connecticut employers seeking to arbitrate employment disputes should:

  • Plainly state in handbooks and hiring materials that employment is at will;
  • Have a written arbitration agreement signed by employees that unambiguously states that all disputes will be resolved by arbitration; if class action waivers are included, they should be clear and explicit;
  • Provide a neutral arbitrator selection process;
  • Absorb the cost of arbitration (which can be several thousand dollars), imposing no more than the cost of commencing litigation on the employee; and
  • Give employees time to consider the arbitration agreement and to consult with counsel. Under the FAA, courts can refuse to enforce arbitration agreements on the same grounds that make any contract unenforceable, including duress or coercion. Providing employees a reasonable period of time to review an arbitration agreement before they must sign it makes the agreement less vulnerable to attack.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Education Law Notes

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page