 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Leonard v. Art Van Furniture6/8/2004
UNPUBLISHED
In these employment discrimination cases which have been consolidated on appeal, defendant Art Van Furniture, Inc. appeals by leave granted orders denying their motions to compel arbitration and for summary disposition. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. Basic Facts and Procedural History
In docket number 243139, Leonard filed a complaint against Art Van alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under the Michigan Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101, et seq. , and assault and battery. In docket number 243368, Sims filed a complaint against Art Van alleging a violation of the Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361, et seq., and race discrimination under the CRA. In each case, Art Van filed a motion to compel arbitration and for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7). Art Van asserted that the employment application and employee handbook included predispute arbitration agreements. In response, plaintiffs argued, among other things, that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement.
With regard to Leonard, the trial court denied Art Van's motion determining that the handbook provision allowing Art Van to modify its contents made Art Van's promises illusory and any agreement lacking in mutuality. It also determined that the application did not require the parties to arbitrate because it expressly became null and void after six months. With regard to Sims, the trial court also denied Art Van's motion determining that the handbook lacked mutuality because of the provision that Art Van could modify the handbook. We granted leave and consolidated the two cases to address whether the trial courts erred in denying Art Van's motions to compel arbitration.
II. Analysis
A. Enforceable Predispute Arbitration Agreement
Art Van argues that the trial courts erred in denying its motions to arbitrate and for summary disposition because the parties entered an enforceable predispute arbitration agreement. We agree.
We review de novo grants or denials of summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). DeCaminada v Coopers & Lybrand, 232 Mich App 492, 496; 591 NW2d 364 (1998). We also review de novo issues of contract interpretation. Archambo v Lawyers Title Ins Corp , 466 Mich 402, 408; 646 NW2d 170 (2002).
" redispute agreements to arbitrate statutory employment discrimination claims are valid if: (1) the parties have agreed to arbitrate the claims (there must be a valid, binding contract covering the civil rights claims), (2) the statute itself does not prohibit such agreements, and (3) the arbitration agreement does not waive the substantive rights and remedies of the statute and arbitration procedures are fair so that the employee may effectively vindicate his statutory rights." Rembert v Ryan's Steak Houses , Inc (On Remand), 235 Mich App 118, 156; 596 NW2d 208 (1999).
The trial court denied Art Van's motions under the first criteria concluding that the parties did not enter into an enforceable predispute arbitration agreement. This ruling was incorrect. The employment application signed by both plaintiffs states in relevant part:
I agree that this application will be considered only for a period of six months after its date. After this six-month period, this application will be null and void. Any continuing interest in employment with the Company must be evidenced by later applications for employment.
IF HIRED, I AGREE TO SUBMIT TO FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION UNDER THE ARBITRATION PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS:
1. ANY CLAIMED VIOLATION OF
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|