Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), an agreement to arbitrate must be in writing, however, the FAA does not require that agreement to be signed by the parties. A Florida district appellate court upheld an employee's unsigned agreement to arbitrate based on the employee's conduct of continued employment.

In Santos v. General Dynamics Aviation Svcs. Corp., No. 4D07-5067, 2008 WL 2512475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 25, 2008), Santos was employed at General Dynamics Aviation Services, Corp. Thereafter, General Dynamics implemented a Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP), which stated that arbitration was the exclusive remedy for resolving employment disputes. The DRP stated that continuation of employment demonstrated acceptance of the DRP.

Santos filed a complaint against General Dynamics with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) General Dynamics terminated her employment. Before the FCHR could reach a decision, Santos filed a complaint against General Dynamics alleging claims of employment discrimination and unjust termination.

In response, General Dynamics filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the DRP. The trial court granted General Dynamics' motion. On appeal, Santos argued that the DRP did not constitute a valid agreement because he never signed the DRP and there was insufficient consideration.

Under the FAA, a written agreement to arbitrate, whether as part of a contract or on its own, will be held valid. The Court stated an arbitration agreement does not have to be signed to meet the FAA writing requirement. Further, the Florida Arbitration Code also does not require a signature on an arbitration agreement. However, there must be sufficient evidence that the parties did indeed agree to arbitrate.

Since Santos did not sign the DRP, the Court reviewed his words and conduct to determine if Santos assented to the agreement. The Court had previously determined that continuation of employment was a sufficient indicator that an employee assented to an agreement. Similarly, Santos' continued employment with General Dynamics, after the DRP was proposed, indicated Santos' assent to the agreement to arbitrate.

Santos also tried to invalidate the arbitration agreement by arguing that there was no consideration for the DRP. The Court determined that there was sufficient consideration because the DRP established a mutual obligation between General Dynamics and its employees to arbitrate employment disputes. "Mutual promises and obligations are sufficient consideration to support a contract," stated the Court. Subsequently, the Court held the arbitration agreement enforceable.