Brief Fact Summary. Adkins, individually and on behalf of 63 other employees, brought suit against Labor Ready in Federal Court, alleging violations of federal and state labor laws.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An arbitration agreement that is conditional to employment is not necessarily unconscionable. Particularly, if an arbitration agreement cannot be proven to be flawed, a disparity in bargaining position, alone, will not support a finding of unconscionability.
Issue. Is an arbitration clause, which is conditional to employment, binding upon employees of a temporary labor agency?
Held. Yes. Affirmed. In Affirming the ruling of the District Court, the Fourth Circuit outlined several rules for considering an arbitration agreement:
First, the court used a test to determine whether arbitration can be compelled, ultimately holding that a litigant can compel arbitration if (1) there is a dispute between it and another party, and they have (2) an arbitration agreement that encompassing the dispute which (3) the other party refuses to arbitrate.
The Court then considered each of Adkins’ arguments. In regards to his argument that Plaintiffs did not receive consideration for their agreement to arbitrate, the Court found that the agreement was reciprocal, and that Defendant had also sacrificed its own claims to arbitration. The reciprocity of the relationship created consideration.
Next the court considered the question of unconscionability. The court found that, while a disparity of bargaining power did exist, a transaction cannot be flawed if the contract is not flawed, which this one was not.
Finally, the court considered Adkins’ contention that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as it was a condition to employment. The court dismissed this claim, relying on the supremacy of the Federal Arbitration Act and its liberal policy favoring arbitration.
Generally, the FAA reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.View Full Point of Law