Listen to this article
Where two plaintiffs have alleged discrimination and retaliation, the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration should be allowed because a reasonable jury could find that both plaintiffs entered into valid and enforceable arbitration agreements.
“Plaintiff Byron Johnson (‘Johnson’) and Brian Taylor (‘Taylor’) (collectively, ‘Plaintiffs’) bring this discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against their former employer, Defendant Kelly Services, Inc. (‘Kelly’ or the ‘Company’) for violations of 42 U.S.C. §1981, the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (‘ELCRA’), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. … Currently before the Court is Kelly’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.
“Defendant argues that Taylor entered into a ‘DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO BINDING ARBITRATION’ (the ‘Arbitration Agreement’ or the ‘Agreement’) when he signed the written agreement at the start of his employment with Kelly in April 2023. … Defendant also alleges Johnson entered into the same Agreement on November 8, 2022, when he used a unique ID and password to complete the ‘Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Disputes – all but California 2022’ training, ‘Acknowledged’ his completion of the training, then continued his employment at Kelly.
“In response to this motion, Johnson argues that completion of a training module does not constitute assent to a valid and enforceable contract, especially when the agreement is unsigned and there was no notice that completion of a training module would manifest assent to arbitrate. … The Court disagrees.
“Plaintiffs also argue that the arbitration agreement is invalid based on lack of notice. … The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
“The Court therefore finds Kelly has carried its burden in showing a contract existed between it and Johnson. And Johnon presents nothing to create a genuine issue of material fact to the existence of that Agreement.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could find that both Johnson and Taylor entered into valid and enforceable arbitration agreements; and Plaintiffs have failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to the validity of the agreements to arbitrate. Therefore, an order compelling the Parties to arbitration is appropriate. Further, having found that neither Agreement is invalid based on a lack of procedural fairness, and that all the claims —including the ELCRA claims—must be arbitrated, the Court will stay this action and compel the Parties to arbitration.
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED, the Parties are COMPELLED to arbitrate the claims in dispute, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) is STAYED pending resolution of the arbitration.”
