|
In Stern v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 958(PKC), 2006 WL 2741635 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 22, 2006), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a female employee’s sexual harassment claims were arbitrable. The Court found evidence that she agreed to arbitration, and that in an employment context, continued employment provides sufficient consideration for the agreement.
Stern, a former employee of eSpeed, claimed that she did not recall whether she had signed an arbitration agreement. However, she did admit to the company’s human resources department that a copy of the company’s arbitration agreement contained something resembling her signature. Thus, the Court found that Stern had failed to unequivocally deny that she had seen and signed the documents. Since New York presumes that a signing party agreed to all the terms of the contract, the agreement was enforceable. See Maines Paper and Food Serv., Inc. v. Adel, 256 A.D.2d 760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998).
As for Stern’s argument that the agreement lacked consideration, the Court sided with eSpeed. It was not necessary for the employer to provide any special raise, payment, or promotion in conjunction with the signature because Stern’s continued employment was a sufficient detriment to the promisee. Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 443 N.E.2d 441 (N.Y. 1982).
Finally, the Court found that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable. The arbitration clause was presented in clear language and highlighted with bold, capital lettering. Likewise, Stern’s argument that her signatures were obtained “in a routine manner” or “in such a manner as to be forgettable” did not suggest procedural unconscionability.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|