|
The Ohio Court of Appeals held that an employer’s limited ability to unilaterally modify an arbitration agreement does not offend the requirement of mutuality.
In Bell v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp., No. 87210, 2006 WL 2192053 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2006), Bell sued Hollywood, her former employer, alleging a hostile work environment, sexual harassment and civil battery. Hollywood moved to stay proceedings pursuant to an arbitration agreement in Bell’s employment application. The trial court granted the motion, and Bell appealed.
On appeal, Bell argued that the arbitration agreement offended the requirement of mutuality because it gave Hollywood a unilateral right to modify the agreement. The Court rejected this argument because Hollywood had only a limited ability to modify the agreement. Specifically, Hollywood could modify the agreement only at the end of each year and only if it gave 30-day notice to its employees.
Bell also maintained that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced because she was young, inexperienced, and unfamiliar with arbitration when she agreed to the terms. In rejecting this argument, the Court acknowledged that Bell “may have been young and inexperienced at the time she began her employment with Hollywood” but noted “she was free to find other employment.”
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|