Joana Perez began working for Datamark in January 2005. She received two booklets at orientation, a non-staff employee handbook, and a summary plan description. She did not read either one of them. According to the Human Resources Director, Perez also received a problem resolution program booklet (the PRP) that described company dispute resolution policies and procedures. Perez denied receiving it, but she did sign the receipt and arbitration acknowledgment which was maintained in her personnel file. Her signature acknowledged that she had received and read (or had the opportunity to read) both the summary plan description and the PRP. She also acknowledged that an arbitration policy required the submission of all employee-related disputes to an arbitrator in accordance with the procedures described in the PRP. Datamark reserved the right to revoke or modify the PRP in writing at any time as long as the writing was signed by an officer of the company and articulated an intent to revoke or modify a policy. The interpretation, enforcement, and procedure under the PRP were governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. Perez learned she was pregnant in August 2005. While employed full-time, she began to miss work due to pregnancy difficulties. She was discharged on October 21, 2005, and filed suit alleging unlawful discrimination because of her gender and/or pregnancy. Perez also alleged that Datamark intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous behavior which caused her severe emotional distress. Datamark filed a motion to compel arbitration. In her response to the motion, Perez argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and that the agreement was illusory. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Datamark's motion to compel.
Do you believe the agreement to arbitrate is illusory? Why or why not?
Joana Perez began working for Datamark in January 2005. She received two booklets at orientation, a non-staff employee handbook, and a summary plan description. She did not read either one of them. According to the Human Resources Director, Perez also received a problem resolution program booklet (the PRP) that described company dispute resolution policies and procedures. Perez denied receiving it, but she did sign the receipt and arbitration acknowledgment which was maintained in her personnel file. Her signature acknowledged that she had received and read (or had the opportunity to read) both the summary plan description and the PRP. She also acknowledged that an arbitration policy required the submission of all employee-related disputes to an arbitrator in accordance with the procedures described in the PRP. Datamark reserved the right to revoke or modify the PRP in writing at any time as long as the writing was signed by an officer of the company and articulated an intent to revoke or modify a policy. The interpretation, enforcement, and procedure under the PRP were governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. Perez learned she was pregnant in August 2005. While employed full-time, she began to miss work due to pregnancy difficulties. She was discharged on October 21, 2005, and filed suit alleging unlawful discrimination because of her gender and/or pregnancy. Perez also alleged that Datamark intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous behavior which caused her severe emotional distress. Datamark filed a motion to compel arbitration. In her response to the motion, Perez argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and that the agreement was illusory. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Datamark's motion to compel.
Do you believe the agreement to arbitrate is illusory? Why or why not?
