Employer’s Failure to Respond Waives Written Arbitration Agreement

13 May 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Carrie Hoffman

Employers with mandatory arbitration agreements should be careful to reaffirm their commitment to such agreements in light of the Adock v. Five Star Rentals/Sales, Inc. case. In Adock, which was decided by Texas’ Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, the plaintiff sent a pre-litigation demand letter to his former employer, asserting a claim for worker’s compensation retaliation. In that letter, the employee demanded to know whether there was an arbitration agreement between him and his former employer. The letter further informed the company that Adock would pursue claims in court if there was no arbitration agreement. The employer failed to respond and Adock went on to file a lawsuit in court. As part of discovery, the former employer produced an employment contract that contained a mandatory arbitration provision. Adock informed Five Star he wanted to move the dispute to arbitration but Five Star refused, claiming Adock had waived his right to arbitrate by initiating state court litigation.

In ruling on the pending motion to compel arbitration by Adock, the court found that the parties had entered into an agreement not to arbitrate and that Adock waived his right to arbitrate by invoking the judicial process.

The Texas appellate court reviewed general contract principles in reaching its decision. In doing so, the court was persuaded that the letter that provided Five Star 30 days to provide a copy of a signed agreement to arbitrate or that the failure to do so would be considered an agreement to resolve the dispute in court. Based on Five Star’s failure to provide Adock a copy of the arbitration agreement within the specified demanded time frame, the court found that the parties “entered into a subsequent agreement not to arbitrate.” The later agreement, the court found, superseded the original agreement to arbitrate.

Most courts generally agree that silence will not be considered acceptance of contractual terms unless one of four conditions exist:

(1) Silence will constitute acceptance if the offeree gives the offeror the impression that silence will be considered an acceptance.

(2) Silence will constitute acceptance where the offeror has told the offeree that silence will constitute acceptance.

(3) Silence will constitute acceptance where an offeree improperly exercised dominion over goods sent to him or her for approval or inspection. In such an instance, the offeree is contractually bound to buy the goods at the stated price. The offeree will be forced to buy the goods even if he or she never had any intention of buying them in the first place.

(4) Late acceptance of an offer has the legal weight of a counteroffer. In other words, where an offeror makes an offer to an offeree and the offeree accepts in an untimely manner, that acceptance is not a valid acceptance.

While the company prevailed in Adock, these principles can just as easily be applied to stymie the efforts of an employer that wishes to compel arbitration. Therefore, companies that desire to enforce existing arbitration agreements need to review their files and respond to informal inquiries about the existence of such agreements or they will potentially waive their right to enforce them. This holds true even in situations where the mandatory arbitration clause is in a commercial contract. All companies should take steps to respond to demands about the existence of an arbitration agreement.

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

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.