|
In granting a motion to compel arbitration, an Ohio federal court held that the arbitrator has “exclusive authority” to determine whether a dispute is arbitrable where the arbitration provision specifies that claims surrounding the agreement’s validity are subject to arbitration.
In Taylor v. Rent-A-Center, No. 2301149, 2007 WL 2301149 (N.D. Ohio. Aug. 8, 2007), former Rent-A-Center (RAC) employee Taylor sued RAC for employment discrimination. RAC moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the employment agreement’s arbitration provision. Taylor opposed the motion arguing that the agreement’s cost-splitting and discovery provisions were unconscionable.
The Court held that Taylor’s claims were subject to arbitration, as the arbitrator had “exclusive authority” to decide whether the employment agreement was enforceable. Further, the arbitration agreement mandates that the parties submit all claims to arbitration. Finally, the Court found that an arbitrator should decide whether an employment agreement is unconscionable because the agreement specifically provided for the arbitrator to decide whether “any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.”
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|