Want to Arbitrate Employee Disputes? Keep Your Paperwork!

28 August 2014 Dashboard Insights Blog

Arbitration agreements, and their use as a means to avoid class action disputes in particular, have been repeat news items in the last several years, and many companies continue to consider their use as a means to mitigate class action litigation risks. For companies who have implemented such agreements, a recent federal court decision reminds them of a seemingly simple – but nonetheless critical – point: keep accurate records of such agreements because courts may require proof before allowing a party to compel arbitration. (See Barkley, et al. v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., et al., USDC, MDFL, Case No. 6:14-cv-376-Orl-37DAB.)

In the case, an employer moved to compel arbitration, noting that the representative employees had signed arbitration agreements, and asked the court for a ruling that individual arbitration – as opposed to class arbitration – was appropriate. All but a handful of the class members went to individual arbitration proceedings, but the employer could not locate signed arbitration agreements for those few members of the class. The employer told the court, by way of a declaration, that the employees “must have signed the agreements” because doing so was required by company policy and asked the court to find that the employees “bear the burden to create a genuine issue as to the existence of the arbitration agreement.”

The court noted, however, that the state of the law requires that the employer bear the initial burden to show there is a written agreement bringing the dispute under the Federal Arbitration Act. Only after the employer does so will the employees then have a burden to show they did not agree to the purported written agreement. As a consequence, the court rejected the employer’s attempt to compel arbitration for three of the employees who had brought the wage dispute against the company. According to the court, it simply “will not order plaintiffs to arbitrate when there is essentially zero evidence that they ever even saw, let alone assented to, an arbitration agreement.”

While it may seem like a fairly obvious point, the case nonetheless reminds companies using arbitration agreements of the importance of dotting all the I’s and crossing all the T’s when it comes to read-and-sign policy documents, and in particular arbitration agreements when large class action liability could be at stake. The decision also reminds companies that it is prudent to maintain arbitration agreement signature pages and other policy documents so they can be easily located and referenced. These seemingly small steps can make critical differences later on when significant economic consequences can ride on how good a comany’s recordkeeping has been.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ