|
A federal court in Oregon ordered arbitration of an employment dispute, thereby rejecting the employee's claim that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as either indefinite or unconscionable.
In Lindgren v. Public Storage, Inc., No. 07-14-AA, 2007 WL 1406917 (D. Or. May 7, 2007), Lindgren signed an application for employment at Public Storage, Inc. (PSI). The application contained an acknowledgment that a condition of Lindgren's employment would be to agree to arbitrate all employment disputes.
Due to faulty record-keeping, it was five months after hire when Lindgren actually signed a general agreement to arbitrate (Waiver) and an Employee Handbook Acknowledgement confirming that he had read and understood the Handbook, which contained the specific terms of the three-page arbitration agreement.
The Court found the arbitration agreement in the Handbook to be binding, despite Lindgren's objections. Regarding Lindgren's claim that the one-page Waiver was too indefinite, the Court held that combined with the Handbook, which Lindgren acknowledged having read and understood, the terms of the arbitration agreement were definite.
Regarding Lindgren's claim of unconscionability, the Court found no "surprise" to Lindgren, as the application, the Waiver, and the Handbook Acknowledgement all discussed the duty to arbitrate. Furthermore, because the terms of the agreement applied equally to Lindgren and PSI, the Court found no substantive unconscionability.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|