Adler v. Fred Lind Manor

103 P.3d 773 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, a business that provides housing and services to senior citizens, hired P for a maintenance personnel position. Two months later, D promoted P to maintenance and housekeeper supervisor. In 1995, Paradigm Senior Living assumed management of Dr and required all current employees to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of their continued employment. The arbitration agreement provided that any dispute related to my employment relationship shall be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration in Seattle, Washington under the American Arbitration Association's Commercial Arbitration Rules. The aggrieved party must deliver to the other party a written notice of his/her/its intention to seek arbitration no later than 180 days after the event that first gives rise to the dispute. Otherwise, his/her/its rights shall be irrevocably waived. The dispute shall be decided by one arbitrator selected by mutual agreement of the parties, or absent agreement, in accordance with the Rules. The arbitrator's fee and other expenses of the arbitration process shall be shared equally. The parties shall bear their own respective costs and attorney’s fees. Washington law, to the extent permitted, shall govern all substantive aspects of the dispute and all procedural issues not covered by the Rules. P signed the agreement. P received another promotion to maintenance and housekeeper director. P hurt his hip and back. and was diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis and his doctor advised him to perform 'light duty.' P filed a claim with the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI). P sustained additional injuries and filed claims with DLI for these injuries. P was then fired for ''inability to operate all aspects of [the] maintenance department.'' D replaced P with a younger employee. P filed a complaint with EEOC for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The parties attended EEOC mediation. Neither party made reference to the arbitration agreement. Approximately four months after mediation, the EEOC dismissed P's complaint stating that 'the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes.' P filed a complaint in superior court alleging D violated the WLAD by discriminating against him for his disability, age, and national origin; discharged him for pursuing worker's benefits in violation of Title 51 RCW. D filed its answer on August 1, 2003, claiming for the first time that D must submit his claims to arbitration. D moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. P claimed he did not understand that the 1995 agreement required him to arbitrate his future claims nor was he given a copy of the agreement and that the court declare the agreement unconscionable. Without holding a hearing, the trial court granted Ds motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. P appealed.