Is your arbitration program as bulletproof as you think? Macy's wasn't
A federal appeals court just handed employers a win: Macy's opt-out arbitration program is enforceable, even without an employee's signature.
On March 4, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned a lower court ruling and ordered that a Macy's employee must take his workplace dispute to arbitration rather than to court – a decision that should put HR departments across the country on notice about the power, and the fragility, of how arbitration programs are designed and communicated.
The case began when Curtis Stabile, a Macy's employee, filed a lawsuit against the company and Felecia Green-Hall in federal court in New Jersey. Macy's moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Stabile had already agreed, years earlier, to resolve any work-related disputes through the company's internal arbitration program. The motion came after both parties had completed a period of discovery into whether a valid arbitration agreement existed. Stabile disagreed with Macy's position. The trial court sided with Stabile. Then the appeals court stepped in and changed everything.
The dispute came down to a single document – what Macy's called its Plan Document – and whether it was enough to bind an employee to arbitration. The Plan Document laid out the rules clearly: all employment-related disputes would be settled through binding arbitration. Employees who did not want to participate had to say...
"Here is a follow-up video capturing a classic moment from the Xi-Trump summit: While Xi Jinping was away using the restroom, Trump casually glanced through a small notebook Xi had left on the tab...