July 9, 2020

Volume X, Number 191

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 08, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals Reverses Enforcement of Employment Arbitration Agreement

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed enforcement of an employment arbitration agreement on January 23, 2020, holding that the agreement was both substantively and procedurally unconscionable because it required the parties to submit to arbitration all claims arising among them, even those unrelated to the employment relationship. Thomas v. Hyundai of Bedford, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108212, 2020-Ohio-185. The Eighth District is the intermediate appellate court for Cuyahoga County which includes Cleveland and many surrounding northeast Ohio communities. The case serves as an important reminder regarding careful drafting.

In Thomas, the plaintiff sued his former employer for race discrimination and retaliation under Ohio’s anti-discrimination statute, R.C. Chapter 4112. Mr. Thomas alleged that his employer did not pay him the same as white employees and that his employer retaliated against him by demoting him when he complained.

Mr. Thomas signed an arbitration agreement with his former employer. The agreement provided that  “covered disputes” included “any actual or alleged claim or liability, regardless of its nature.” The only claims excluded were those related to workers’ compensation, violations of the National Labor Relations Act, or any other claim that cannot be the subject of a pre-dispute arbitration agreement by law.

While the trial court granted the employer’s motion stay proceedings pending arbitration, the appellate court reversed, noting that although claims of race discrimination and retaliation were ordinarily arbitrable, an unconscionable arbitration clause is not enforceable. The court explained that a finding of unconscionability requires both substantive and procedural unconscionability. The more substantively unconscionable the agreement, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required. 

Contract terms are substantively unconscionable when they are too harsh, unfair, or unreasonable to one party. Procedural unconscionability exists when one party enjoys such superior bargaining power that it deprives the other party of “meaningful choice” in signing the contract.

The court found the agreement was substantively unconscionable because it “sought to include every possible situation that might arise in an employee’s life, [and, therefore] the arbitrator would be resolving disputes unrelated to employment.”  

In finding procedural unconscionability, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because he had no choice but to sign it to keep his job. In fact, the court explained that under Ohio precedent, employers are permitted to condition at will employment on an agreement to arbitrate disputes.  Instead, the court found procedural unconscionability largely for the same reason that it found substantive unconscionability: that the scope of the agreement went beyond employment and the agreement did not clearly say so.  The court stated, “[e]ven a diligent reading of the ‘covered disputes’ clause would not inform a reasonable reader of its actual effect. The clause does not explain that disputes arising outside the scope of employment . . . must also proceed to arbitration.”

The employer in the Thomas case may seek reconsideration or en banc review by the Eighth District and/or petition the Ohio Supreme Court to review this decision, but is not required to do so. Among other arguments likely to be raised is that the court’s ruling should be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 341 (2011) (“When state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA.”). 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020National Law Review, Volume X, Number 27


About this Author

Samia Kirmani, Jackson Lewis Law Firm, Unemployment Counseling Attorney

Samia M. Kirmani is a Principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She concentrates her practice in employment counseling, training and litigation on behalf of management.

Ms. Kirmani provides practical legal advice to clients on various employment law issues, including discrimination, health and leave management, reductions in force, retaliation and whistleblower matters, individual separations, and employee relations issues. Ms. Kirmani also assists clients with policy creation, revision and...

Patrick O. Peters, Healthcare Attorney, Principal, Jackson Lewis, Law Firm

Patrick O. Peters is a Principal in the Cleveland, Ohio, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He maintains an active, diverse, management-side employment law practice covering the full spectrum of the employment relationship.

Mr. Peters counsels clients in the healthcare, retail, contingent staffing, and hospitality industries, among others, on hiring, promotion, discipline and termination decisions; negotiates executive employment agreements; and drafts and reviews employee policy manuals for compliance with state and federal law. A significant portion of Mr. Peters’ practice is devoted to employment litigation. He defends employers before state and federal administrative agencies and in courts throughout the United States in claims involving breach of contract, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful discharge and state and federal wage and hour and leave of absence laws. Mr. Peters’ litigation practice also includes representing employers in actions to enforce mandatory alternative dispute resolution agreements and related proceedings, prosecuting and defending trade secret and non-compete matters, and representing employer-sponsored benefit plans and their fiduciaries in ERISA litigation.

James M Stone, Litigation Attorney, Negotiator, Jackson Lewis Law Firm
Office Managing Principal

James M. Stone is Office Managing Principal of the Cleveland, Ohio, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. With more than 25 years of experience in labor and employment law, he has conducted more than 120 negotiations with unions, defended hundreds of employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, and other claims in court and before administrative agencies such as the EEOC, NLRB, and Department of Labor.

Mr. Stone has defended companies against a broad range of challenges including wrongful discharge claims, wage and hour actions, large multi-plaintiff discrimination...

Corey Donovan Tracey Principal Jackson Lewis Disability, Leave and Health Management Workplace Training

Ms. Tracey counsels management across a broad spectrum of labor and employment law issues arising from all aspects of the employment relationship impacting both multi-state and local employers. She works as a strategic partner with employers to provide practical, business-focused compliance advice on a multitude of management decisions related to hiring; disciplinary action; termination; disability accommodations and leave management; policy and process development and implementation (particularly for multi-state compliance); reductions in force (including WARN Act and Older...