Appeals Court Finds Plaintiff’s Factual Assertions Legally Insufficient To Overcome Agreement to Arbitrate

In Solomon v. Carite Corporate LLC, the Sixth Circuit overruled the District Court’s denial of summary judgment sought be an employer contending that a former employee’s claims against it and a co-employee were subject to arbitration. In addition to the appellate court finding the arbitration agreement was broad enough to encompass the claims at issue, the court found no triable issue presented by plaintiff’s factual assertions that she was told that “if she didn’t sign, she would be terminated and that, at the time he asked her to sign it, she had very little time to review the agreement because she was busy with her daily work duties.” The court noted that plaintiff “admits, however, that she read through the document for five to ten minutes before signing it, that she possesses some post-secondary education, and that she had experience reviewing car-sales contacts, but she says that she did not understand the arbitration agreement or have the opportunity to consult a lawyer.”

The court held that plaintiff’s factual assertions, even if proven true, failed to meet the legal requirements of coercion, incapacity, lack of mutuality, or knowing waiver.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s