|
Denying a motion to compel arbitration of a sex discrimination suit, a Pennsylvania federal court held that the mere fact that an employee "must have known" there was an arbitration provision did not establish a valid arbitration agreement.
In Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chicolte, PC, No. Civ A 06-1495, 2007 WL 2142397 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 24, 2007), Kirleis, a Dickie, McCamey & Chicolte attorney and shareholder, sued the law firm for sex discrimination. The law firm moved to compel arbitration, as the partnership's By-Laws contained an arbitration provision.
The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration finding that there was no agreement to arbitrate. Under Pennsylvania law, there must be a valid meeting of the minds for there to be a valid arbitration agreement. Although the By-Laws contained an arbitration provision, the firm had never provided Kirleis with a copy of the By-Laws. Additionally, Kirleis had never signed an agreement to arbitrate or a document incorporating the By-Laws' arbitration provision.
Further, the Court rejected the firm's argument that Kirleis became bound by the arbitration agreement by exercising her shareholder rights under the By-Laws. Moreover, the Court rejected the law firm's assertion that Kirleis should have known the By-Laws existed and requested a copy of the By-Laws. The fact that Karleis "must have known or should have asked falls short of the standard required by Pennsylvania law that plaintiff actually agree to arbitrate her claims."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|