This past year, Congress has held hearings on the Arbitration Fairness Act, H.R. 3010/S. 1782, legislation that would limit the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements out of concern for their effect on legal rights in the workplace and elsewhere. The facts of a recent case from Illinois provide an example of the concerns that prompted the bill. Niebrugge v. King’s Medical Group, Inc., Case No.1:08-cv-1018 (C.D. Ill. Jul. 31, 2008).
When the plaintiff sued for failure to pay her properly under federal and state wage laws, her employer filed a motion to compel arbitration. It claimed that the employee had agreed to arbitrate all workplace disputes. The court did not grant the employer’s motion for several reasons. The judge found that the language was ambiguous, and that Illinois law required that ambiguous contract language be construed against its drafter. The judge also found that there was no contract under the 2001 handbook the employee had signed because there was no clear and unmistakable offer, it did not make clear that arbitration was mandatory, nor did it explain that the employee was waiving rights. The 2007 handbook was an attempt to have it both ways, to treat the handbook as a contract that bound the employee while the employer was not bound to perform its obligations to the employee.
Sphere: Related Content
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
You must log in to post a comment.