March 5, 2021

Volume XI, Number 64

Advertisement

March 04, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 03, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 02, 2021

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.”). 

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

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Samia Kirmani, Jackson Lewis Law Firm, Unemployment Counseling Attorney
Principal

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...

617-367-0025
Patrick O. Peters, Healthcare Attorney, Principal, Jackson Lewis, Law Firm
Principal

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...

216-750-4338
James M Stone Labor & Employment Attorney Jackson Lewis Cleveland, OH
Principal

James M. Stone is a principal of the Cleveland, Ohio, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. From the opening of the office in 2006 until early 2020, Jim served as office managing principal in Cleveland, when he stepped down to focus on his busy practice and increased task force activities within practice groups and industry teams.

With more than 25 years of experience in labor and employment law, he has conducted more than 120 negotiations with unions, represented companies in hundreds of employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, and other claims in court and...

216-750-4307
Corey Donovan Tracey Principal Jackson Lewis Disability, Leave and Health Management Workplace Training
Principal

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...

216-750-0404
Advertisement
Advertisement