|
Employees who agree to resolve employment discrimination suits through arbitration cannot later challenge the agreement as procedurally unconscionable if the parties had relatively equal bargaining power, the agreement was not oppressive, and the agreement afforded the parties meaningful choice, according to a Georgia federal court.
In Marley v. Macy's South, No. CV 405-227, 2007 WL 1745619 (S.D. Ga. June 18, 2007), Macy's sought to compel arbitration of former employee Marley's employment discrimination claim. Marley opposed the motion, alleging that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable due to coercion.
The Court noted that Marley's challenge was essentially that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable, not that employment discrimination claims were outside the scope of the agreement. The Court refused to find the agreement procedurally unconscionable, noting that Marley had "the age, experience, intelligence, and business acumen to enter into the arbitration agreement." Furthermore, the Court observed that Marley "understood the arbitration process by witnessing others go through it" in the course of her employment.
The Court was also satisfied that there was no real threat to Marley's job had she not acquiesced to the arbitration agreement, noting that the program was not mandatory, the opt-out election form was sent to the employees' homes, the response was confidential, and the response was mailed to the home office instead of to her local place of employment.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|