|
A United States District Court in Ohio held that a signature is not necessary to establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate.
In Hyde v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 5:06-CV-02161, 2006 WL 3253136 (N. D. Ohio Nov 08, 2006), Wayland Hyde, a jeweler, worked for Sterling Jewelers Inc. (“Sterling”). Sterling adopted a mandatory dispute resolution system called RESOLVE. The final phase of the program required arbitration. It stated that “[n]either party may file a lawsuit instead of using the RESOLVE program or accepting the Arbitrator's final decision.”
Hyde filed a claim through the RESOLVE process and appealed the result. He then brought suit against Sterling. Sterling moved to stay court proceedings based on the agreement to arbitrate in the final phase of the RESOLVE program. The only contested issue was the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Court rejected Hyde’s argument that he was not bound to arbitrate because he had not signed the agreement, and held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed under Ohio law.
Hyde continued to work for Sterling eight years after its adoption of the RESOLVE program and was very familiar with its terms. The Court held that Hyde had implicitly accepted RESOLVE’s terms by electing to continue his employment. Further, he had already utilized the RESOLVE program by submitting his claims. Concluding that an agreement to arbitrate existed, the Court held that Hyde was obligated to arbitrate his claims.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|