The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P worked as a dancer for D, an adult entertainment club, from approximately February 2014 to August 2023. D signed three separate and identical Lease Agreement Waivers (Lease Waivers). Each Lease Waiver is a single-page document containing two paragraphs with text written in a roughly 11-point font. The second paragraph is an arbitration provision and begins with the heading in all capital letters: 'MANDATORY ARBITRATION AND CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION WAIVER.' The Lease Waiver's arbitration provision states: Any and all disputes or claims that arise out of this Agreement, a breach of this Agreement, or out of the relationship between me and National Entertainment Group, LLC (including any wage claim, any claim based upon promises or duties NEG made or owed to me, any claim based upon promises or duties I made or owed to NEG, as well as any claim for money, compensation, tips and/or fees, any claim for wrongful termination, or any claim based upon any statute, regulation, or law, including those dealing with wages and hours, overtime, discrimination, sexual harassment, civil rights, age, gender, sexual preference, or disabilities, as well as any tort claims) shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the then effective arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association ('AAA'), and judgment upon the award rendered pursuant to such arbitration shall be final and binding and may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. . . . I understand that by agreeing to the mandatory arbitration set forth herein, I waive my right to a jury trial and to proceed with any claim against NEG in a court of law. P sued D on her own behalf and on behalf of all putative class action members, bringing claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.01 et seq.; the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4113.15; Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.60; and a common law unjust enrichment theory. P claimed that D failed to maintain employment records and properly compensate its employees. D moved in part to have the suit stayed pending the completion of arbitration. The district court denied D's motion to dismiss, concluding that P had plausibly alleged sufficient facts to support standing. The court had applied the four-factor test set out in Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 714 (6th Cir. 2000), in which courts ask (i) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; (ii) whether the claims fall within the scope of that agreement; (iii) whether Congress intended the federal claims to be arbitrable, and (iv) whether to stay the case pending arbitration if the court concludes that some, but not all, of the claims in the action are subject to arbitration. The court held the Lease Waiver's arbitration provision was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and thus, there was no agreement to arbitrate under the first Stout factor. D appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.