An arbitration provision in a plaintiff’s employment contract should be enforced against him despite his assertion that the defendant employer neither explained the agreement’s contents nor recommended that he consult an attorney, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Over two years into his tenure as an underwriter for defendant United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, plaintiff John Gavette was fired by the company. Gavette believed his termination resulted from his accommodation request to care for his disabled wife. He sued the company for, in his view, violating federal and state disabilities laws. In response, United Wholesale, citing an arbitration provision in Gavette’s employment contract (the “Agreement”), moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration. The district court granted the company’s motion.
“Neither party disputes that the Agreement contains Gavette’s electronic signature. … Gavette’s primary retort is the following: he does not remember signing an arbitration clause. At most, he recalls documents being ‘laid out in front of [him] without adequate time to review [them] or seek legal advice,’” Judge Chad A. Readler wrote for a three-judge panel.
“In the end, whether Gavette read the Agreement, understood the meaning of its arbitration clause, or received legal assistance from his employer is irrelevant. In Michigan, ‘one who signs a contract will not be heard to say, when enforcement is sought, that he did not read it, or that he supposed it...
LOS ANGELES — A former Amtrak employee has been sentenced to 25 months in prison for conspiring to steal nearly $1 million in pandemic-related unemployment insurance benefits and fraudently obtain...