Three plaintiffs who signed an arbitration agreement when they agreed to work for the defendant could not challenge the validity of that agreement by claiming that they “do not recall” reviewing or signing it, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled.
The plaintiffs claim that their former employer, the defendant, racially discriminated against them. When one plaintiff reported the discrimination, she says the defendant retaliated against her by terminating her employment. She and the other plaintiffs brought suit alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §1981 and Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
In response, the defendant moved to compel arbitration, claiming the plaintiffs each signed an arbitration agreement when they agreed to work there.
“Plaintiffs’ affidavits — and their inconsistent briefing — are insufficient to challenge the validity of the electronically approved arbitration agreements,” Judge Laurie J. Michelson wrote.
“Plaintiffs’ affidavits are inconsistent with their briefing. In their affidavits, each claim that they ‘do not recall’ reviewing or signing an arbitration agreement. … But in their response brief, Plaintiffs claim they ‘never signed an agreement to arbitrate.’ … Thus, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs’ argument is that they do not recall signing an arbitration agreement or that they did not sign an arbitration agreement. The affidavits, of course, are sworn testimony while the statements in the brief are just...
PORTLAND, Maine (WGME) -- A week after employees at the Holy Donut on Park Avenue in Portland told the company they were looking to unionize, the company now says those workers made false accusati...