|
A federal court in Colorado flatly rejected an argument that an expressly terminated arbitration agreement could be "revived" after the supplanting agreement was subsequently terminated.
In Putnam v. Teletech Holdings, No. 06-cv-00800-MSK-MEH, 2007 WL 678619 (D. Colo. Feb. 28, 2007), Putnam was involved in what the Court described as a "contentious on-again, off-again relationship" with his employer, Teletech Holdings.
At issue were three employment agreements: a "First Agreement" containing arbitration provisions; a "Second Agreement" also containing arbitration provisions and expressly repudiating all past agreements; and a "Third Agreement," which terminated the Second Agreement and provided that Putnam's employment would be governed by policies "generally applicable" to all employees.
When Putnam sued Teletech for breach of contract and other claims, Teletech argued that the Third Agreement's repudiation of the Second Agreement had effectively "revived" the First Agreement and its arbitration clause.
The Court, however, disagreed and denied Teletech's motion to compel arbitration. None of the cases cited by Teletech created a rule of law allowing "revival" of a terminated arbitration agreement. Rather, these cases suggested precisely the opposite: an arbitration provision loses its continuing vitality where the parties have expressly agreed to terminate it.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|