Ragland v. Iec Us Holdings, Inc.

Facts

P filed her complaint and D moved to compel arbitration. D argued that P knew that agreeing to its Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Arbitration Agreement was a condition of employment because her employment application and offer letter both referenced the arbitration requirement. D argued that the arbitration requirement also was 'expressly contained in the stand-alone Arbitration Agreement that P received and 'executed' on her first day of employment.' P's counsel told D that she never 'signed' the agreement, but instead wrote, 'No Refused,' on the signature line. D asserted that the agreement was enforceable because she assented to arbitration by signing the employment application and offer letter and by commencing employment with knowledge of the requirement. P electronically signed the employment application which stated: “If an offer of employment is extended, in consideration for accepting employment, by signing below, I confirm my voluntary agreement to submit to final and binding arbitration for any and all claims and disputes with D, including but not limited to those related in any way to my employment or the termination of my employment . . . I understand further that final and binding arbitration will be the sole and exclusive remedy for any such claim and dispute against both IEC and/or its employees, officers, directors, or agents, and that, by agreeing to use arbitration to resolve such claims or disputes, both D and I agree to forego any right we each may have had to a jury trial on these claims or disputes. The statement further provided 'that the application does not constitute an employment contract.' A written offer letter specified: 'This offer of employment is contingent upon the following: . . . Your agreement to the terms of the Company's Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement (enclosed) and returning the signed Agreement along with a signed copy of this offer letter . . . .' P signed the letter: A week later, P reported for onboarding. Every new hire was required to execute the arbitration agreement before proceeding with other onboarding procedures. D attested that no employee had ever refused to sign the arbitration agreement, nor had any employee ever questioned whether the agreement was mandatory for employment. D was 'certain that her onboarding was unremarkable in that she did not question the Arbitration Agreement or refuse to sign it' because Perez 'would have certainly remembered it.' Perez, D's employee for onboarding stated that after P 'signed' the arbitration agreement, Perez executed it on D's behalf and did not scrutinize P's signature because she was 'not a handwriting expert and her signature appeared to resemble 'Na Ragland' or something to that effect.' D attached a copy of the allegedly signed arbitration agreement. Paragraphs two and three stated that the agreement was binding on the employee and IEC and covered all claims related to employment, including claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and applicable state law. Paragraph ten contained an integration clause. Above the signature line on the final page, the agreement stated in all capital letters and bold font: 'BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, YOU AND THE COMPANY ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS THAT ARISE OUT OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION INSTEAD OF A JURY OR COURT TRIAL. THIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.' It further stated: 'By signing here, Employee acknowledges that Employee has read, understood, and agrees to be legally bound to the terms of this Agreement.' (emphasis added) P wrote the date and printed her name on the 'Name (Printed)' line, but she wrote, 'No Refused,' on the 'Employee Signature' line: Below P's signature block, Perez printed her name and title. P claimed that D failed to produce a valid agreement to arbitrate. P submitted a declaration and attested that after receiving the offer letter and copy of the arbitration agreement, she called Perez and asked what she should do if she was unwilling to accept the arbitration agreement. P stated that Perez instructed her 'to simply put down that I refused,' so she wrote the words 'No Refused' and returned the signed offer letter and the rejected arbitration agreement. The magistrate judge noted the 'very unusual circumstances' of Ragland's rejection but concluded that D failed to carry its burden to prove the existence of a valid agreement, including by failing to argue or proffer evidence from a handwriting expert that Ragland had signed her name on the agreement. The magistrate judge concluded that both the integration clause in the arbitration agreement and the express requirement that the agreement be accepted 'BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT' meant that neither the employment application nor the offer letter could substitute for her signature on the agreement, and her continued employment could not constitute acceptance under the terms of the agreement. The district court rejected D's argument that the employment application, offer letter, and commencement of employment could constitute acceptance in the light of the controlling last writing, which evidenced a clear, written refusal to arbitrate and nullified any previous acts of assent.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner.