Brendan Gooley

Employer Enforces Arbitration Despite Absence of Signature

March 22, 2021 by Brendan Gooley

An employer was able to enforce an arbitration agreement without an employee’s signature and even though one of the parties in the lawsuit was also a non-signatory to the agreement.

Elizabeth Trujillo was an employee of Volt Management Corp., an employee leasing company. Through Volt, she worked as an on-site coordinator at Schneider Electric, where she performed human resources functions for employees Volt leased to Schneider.

Trujillo sued Volt and Schneider after her request for a disability accommodation was purportedly denied and she was terminated, allegedly for retaliatory reasons.

Volt filed a motion to compel arbitration. The district court granted Volt’s motion and ordered all three parties to arbitrate Trujillo’s claims because her claims against Schneider were intertwined with her claims against Volt. Trujillo appealed and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

The Fifth Circuit rejected Trujillo’s argument that she was not required to arbitrate because she never signed an arbitration agreement. Trujillo had submitted a job application that contained an arbitration agreement, accepted her employment knowing that she was agreeing to submit her claims to arbitration, and continued working for Volt after she received Volt’s alternate dispute resolution policy in Volt’s employee handbook. Most importantly, the arbitration agreement did “not contain express language indicating that the parties intended to be bound to the arbitration agreement only if the parties signed the agreement.” There was “nothing more than a blank signature block that [spoke] to the party’s intent” and the district court therefore “did not err in holding that the arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable … without Trujillo’s signature.”

The court also rejected Trujillo’s claims that Volt failed to prevent competent evidence to establish a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the district court erred by requiring her to arbitrate her claims against Schneider, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement. Intertwined claims estoppel, which the court had previously predicted the Texas Supreme Court would adopt if it was presented with the question, applied because Trujillo’s claims against Schneider were “‘intimately founded in and intertwined with’ Trujillo’s underlying contract with Volt.”

Trujillo v. Volt Management Corp., No. 20-50526 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2021).

Massachusetts Supreme Court Holds That Uber’s Registration Process Did Not Provide Reasonable Notice of Terms and Conditions and That Arbitration Was Therefore Improper

March 3, 2021 by Brendan Gooley

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held that Uber’s notification of its “terms and conditions” during the registration process for its app did not provide “reasonable notice” to users of Uber’s terms, that there was therefore no valid contract between Uber and the users who were suing it, and that arbitration that had occurred had therefore been improper.

The Kauders sued Uber in Massachusetts Superior Court claiming, among other things, that it had unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Kauders on the basis of his disability because three Uber drivers refused to give him rides because he is blind and was accompanied by a guide dog.

Uber moved to compel arbitration under its terms and conditions. The court granted Uber’s motion and the parties arbitrated the case. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Uber.

Shortly thereafter, the First Circuit held, in a different case against Uber, that “Uber’s registration process did not create a contract because it did not provide reasonable notice to users of the terms and conditions” and there was “no enforceable contract requiring arbitration.”

In the Kauders litigation, Uber then moved to confirm the arbitration award. At the hearing on that motion, the Kauders raised the First Circuit’s decision and subsequently moved for reconsideration of the court’s decision compelling arbitration. The court granted that motion in light of the First Circuit’s decision and denied Uber’s motion to confirm. Uber appealed.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed with the First Circuit and the Kauders that Uber’s registration process did not provide reasonable notice of its terms and conditions.

Uber argued that (1) the trial court lacked authority to deny its motion to confirm because the Kauders “failed to move to vacate the award within thirty days”; (2) the Kauders’ motion for reconsideration was untimely and improper “because there was no change in fact or law”; and (3) Uber’s registration process created a valid, enforceable contract requiring arbitration.

The Supreme Court rejected Uber’s argument about the Kauders’ failure to move to vacate the award, explaining that, unlike federal law, it “d[id] not consider participation in the arbitration process as requiring revisitation of the arbitrability issue within the thirty-day time period.”

Although the Supreme Court agreed with Uber’s argument that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the Kauders’ motion for reconsideration, it declined to remand the case to require the trial court to confirm Uber’s arbitration award because “the issue of arbitrability would [still] be preserved for appeal” and the Kauders “would then undoubtedly appeal on that ground, and the case would be right back before” the Supreme Court.

Applying a “two-prong test” asking “whether there is reasonable notice of the terms and a reasonable manifestation of assent to those terms,” the court determined that Uber’s terms of service did not create a valid contract. When the Kauders created user accounts, a link to Uber’s “terms and conditions” was on the bottom of the third screen they saw during the registration process. The screen stated: “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.” “Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy” was “in a rectangular box and in boldface font,” while the rest of the sentence in question was in ordinary type. The court described Uber’s “terms and conditions” as “extensive” and conferring broad indemnity on Uber.

The court concluded that Uber’s registration process did not provide “reasonable notice” of Uber’s “terms and conditions” under the circumstances, finding it significant that (1) “the interface did not require the user to scroll through the conditions or even select them,” even though Uber required its drivers to review its terms and conditions for drivers before registering to drive; (2) the notification about the “terms and conditions” was “oddly displayed,” with the important language notifying users that they were agreeing to something “being displayed less prominently than” the phrases “terms and conditions” and “privacy policy”; (3) the placement of the “terms and conditions” notification was on the “third screen” without any prior reference to the terms; and (4) the “title of the screen” and “the information on” it focused on payment, not conditions.

In sum, “the design of the interface for the app … enable[d], if not encourage[d], users to ignore the terms and conditions” and “[n]othing about [the] third screen … conveyed to a user that he or she should open a link that would reveal an extensive set of terms and conditions at the bottom of the screen.” “Instead of requiring its users to review [its] terms and conditions as it appear[ed] to do with its drivers, Uber ha[d] designed an interface that allow[ed] the registration to be completed without reviewing or even acknowledging the terms and conditions.” Thus, Uber “failed to show that it provided the [Kauders] with reasonable notice.”

There was therefore “no enforceable agreement between Uber and the [Kauders], and therefore the dispute [in this case] was not arbitrable.” Accordingly, the court remanded the case.

Kauders v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. SCJ-12883 (Jan. 4, 2021).

London Court of Appeal Vacates and Remands Decision Blocking Transfer of Approximately 370K Annuity Policies

March 1, 2021 by Brendan Gooley

A London Court of Appeal recently vacated and remanded a High Court’s decision precluding the approval of a deal to transfer approximately 370,000 annuities after concluding that the High Court made several errors in its analysis of the relevant factors in play.

Prudential Assurance Co. (PAC) and Rothesay Life PLC entered into a reinsurance agreement “to transfer the majority of the economic risk and reward of the annuity business covered by the agreement from PAC to Rothesay.” The “assets backing the annuity policies were transferred by PAC to Rothesay as part of the premium for the reinsurance.”

A separate business transfer agreement “contemplated that the parties would cooperate to achieve the actual transfer of th[e] business through” regulatory and court approval.

As part of the approval process, the parties asked the High Court of Justice of the Business and Property Courts in London “to sanction a scheme … providing for the transfer from PAC to Rothesay of some 370,000 annuity policies written by PAC” under the United Kingdom’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which permits discretionary court approval of such schemes if “in all the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to sanction the scheme.”

The High Court declined to approve the scheme. In short, the court did so because, among other things, (1) “Rothesay did not have the same capital management policies or the backing of a large well-resourced group” (in other words, PAC, which was part of the Prudential family, had much more support from its parent in the event of a financial crisis) and (2) “it had been reasonable, in the light of PAC’s sales materials, age and reputation, for policyholders to have chosen PAC on the basis of an assumption that it would not seek to transfer their policies” (in other words, policyholders selected PAC for its financial strength and reputation and reasonably believed that they would be dealing with PAC for the life of their annuities, which could be decades).

PAC and Rothesay appealed, and the Court of Appeal vacated and remanded.

In sum, the Court of Appeal held, among other things, that the High Court “ought not to have concluded that there was a material disparity between the non-contractual external support potentially available for each of PAC and Rothesay” (put differently, the court wrongly believed Rothesay had less support from its parent than PAC had from its parent) because the High Court “disregarded the opinion of [an independent] expert and the [Prudential Regulation Authority] as to [PAC’s and Rothesay’s] future financial resilience on the false basis that those opinions were themselves founded upon only a snapshot of the current year” when they were not.

Even putting that aside, the Court of Appeal explained that the theoretical availability of “non-contractual parental support” that the High Court felt would be provided by PAC’s parent (Prudential) to protect its reputation in the event of a financial crisis at PAC was irrelevant because it was not proper to “assume that any non-contractual parental support will be available in the future” because, among other things, “[p]arents can never be required to support their subsidiaries” and “parents of insurers are always at liberty to sell their regulated subsidiaries.” The independent expert had, in any event, concluded that the risk of either “PAC or Rothesay needing external support in the future was remote,” and the High Court failed to give that opinion proper weight.

Turning to the High Court’s analysis concerning the policyholders’ decisions and expectations, the Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court “ought not to have accorded any weight to the fact that the objecting policyholders chose PAC on the basis of its age, venerability and established reputation, and reasonably assumed that PAC would always provide their annuities” because such subjective considerations were irrelevant and the “only correct question was whether the transfer would have a material adverse effect on the security of their benefits.”

In re Prudential Assurance Co., No. [2020] EWCA Civ 1626 (Feb. 12, 2020).

Court Compels Arbitration Because Non-Signatory “Knowingly Exploited” and Obtained Benefits of Agreement

February 5, 2021 by Brendan Gooley

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently compelled arbitration involving a claim by a plaintiff who had not signed a Comcast subscriber agreement on the ground that the plaintiff had used benefits under the agreement and exercised control over the Comcast account. The court held that the plaintiff was therefore equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.

James Shelton’s father signed up for Comcast and agreed to Comcast’s subscriber agreement, which provided, among other things, that Mr. Shelton’s father was accepting the agreement “on behalf of all persons who use [Comcast’s] Equipment and/or Service(s) at the Premises” (i.e., the Shelton household) and that Mr. Shelton’s father had “sole responsibility for ensuring that all other users understand and comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any applicable policies.” The agreement also contained an arbitration clause.

Mr. Shelton, who lived in the Shelton household, subsequently placed a service call to Comcast in which he acknowledged using Comcast’s services and setting up his account online. Mr. Shelton also “associated his own personal cell phone with the Shelton Household Account.”

Mr. Shelton later filed suit alleging that Comcast and other defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by “check[ing] his credit report without a permissible purpose.”

Comcast moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subscriber agreement.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Comcast’s motion. Applying Pennsylvania law, the court held that Mr. Shelton was “equitably estopped from avoiding the Arbitration Provision” in the subscriber agreement because, even though “other members of [Mr. Shelton’s] household … originally contracted for Comcast’s services,” Mr. Shelton had “sought and obtained benefits under the agreement by … not only using the Comcast services provided under the agreement at the Shelton Household, but also by exercising control over the account.” Mr. Shelton “‘did more than just passively benefit from the services.’”

Shelton v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:20-cv-01763 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2021).

First Circuit Affirms That Assignee May Compel Arbitration

January 21, 2021 by Brendan Gooley

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed that a debt collection company defendant could compel arbitration where it was assigned rights from a credit card company.

Jackeline Barbosa opened a credit card with Barclays Bank Delaware. She later had an overdue, unpaid balance. Barclays bundled Barbosa’s unpaid balance with other such balances and sold it to Midland Funding LLC, a shell entity that assigned its rights to Midland Credit Management Inc. (MCM), which retained the law firm of Schreiber/Cohen LLC “to assist in MCM’s debt collection efforts.” Midland Funding filed a claim for the debt in Boston Municipal Court, but that court held that “Midland Funding had not proved it owned the subject debt” and ruled in favor of Barbosa. Barbosa and two other plaintiffs then brought a federal putative class action against MCM and Schreiber/Cohen alleging, among other things, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MCM and Schreiber/Cohen moved to compel arbitration. A magistrate judge recommended the court compel arbitration and the district court agreed. Barbosa appealed.

The First Circuit affirmed. It rejected Barbosa’s claim that MCM and Schreiber/Cohen did not have the contractual authority to compel arbitration. The court explained that Barclays had expressly assigned its rights to Midland Funding and that MCM “is the servicer and agent of Midland Funding” and “Schreiber/Cohen is Midland Funding’s agent.” The cardmember agreement Barbosa had signed “included an assignment provision giving Barclays permission to ‘at any time assign or sell [Barbosa’s] Account’” and that “‘the person(s) to whom [Barclays] make[s] any such assignment or sale shall be entitled to all of our rights under [the] Agreement.’”

Barbosa v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 19-1896 (1st Cir. Nov. 25, 2020).