A federal district court in Colorado found that an employee's legitimate signature on an arbitration agreement created an enforceable arbitration agreement, and agreed with Fifth Circuit precedent holding that Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") claims are arbitrable.

In Ernest v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. Civ. A. 07-cv-02038-WYD-KLM, 2008 WL 2958964 (D. Colo. July 29, 2008), Ernest filed suit against Lockheed Martin when they failed to rehire him upon his return from Iraq. Lockheed Martin moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement signed by Ernest.

In opposing the motion to compel, Ernest argued that he had not signed an arbitration agreement. However, his signature appeared on the document and experts testified that it was "highly probable" the signature was his and very unlikely that it had been cut and pasted from another employee document he had signed. Moreover, Ernest admitted that although he did not remember signing any of the employee documents, the signature looked like it could be his.

Upon determining that the arbitration agreement was signed by Ernest, the Court held that the agreement encompassed USERRA claims. On this issue, Ernest argued that Congress intended to preempt arbitration of claims under USERRA.

In rejecting this argument, the Court noted the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration that substantive statutory claims are arbitrable unless Congress states that a judicial forum is not waivable as to those specific rights. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985).

Agreeing with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which analyzed the legislative history of USERRA in a recent decision, the Court held that such claims are subject to arbitration. SeeGarrett v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 449 F.3d 672, 679-80 (5th Cir. 2006) (recounting USERRA's legislative history and finding an arbitral forum was allowed to resolve such claims). Congress did not reveal any intent to preclude arbitration of USERRA claims.

Based on those reasons, the Court stayed the matter pending arbitration.