Brian Uszak v. AT&T Mobility Services, 658 F. App'x 758

Plaintiff Brian Uszak, a former AT&T store manager, was fired in May 2014 and sued AT&T and a supervisor for age and gender discrimination; AT&T removed the case and moved to compel arbitration based on a Management Arbitration Agreement (MAA).
AT&T had emailed the MAA to Uszak’s company UID three times (Dec 2011–Jan 2012); on Jan 21, 2012 someone logged into his account and clicked a “Review Completed” link; Uszak never opted out.
District court held an evidentiary hearing; witnesses testified about AT&T’s rollout system (Promenta), separate OPUS and e‑mail accounts, password practices, and whether passwords were shared among store employees.
Uszak testified that passwords were sometimes shared and suggested someone else might have clicked the review link; other witnesses contradicted widespread e‑mail password sharing and said OPUS passwords were used for transactions, not trainings.
The district court found Uszak accessed the MAA, clicked the review button, did not opt out, and that the MAA was a valid arbitration agreement under Ohio law; it compelled arbitration and dismissed the case.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, and affirmed the district court’s ruling enforcing the MAA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parties agreed to arbitrate	Uszak: he never received, read, or accepted the MAA; someone else may have clicked the review link	AT&T: MAA was transmitted to his UID, he clicked “Review Completed” and failed to opt out, demonstrating acceptance	Court: No clear error—evidence supports that Uszak accessed and accepted the MAA; arbitration agreement exists
Whether MAA satisfies contract formation under Ohio law (consideration, mutual assent)	Uszak: no consideration because acceptance wasn’t required for continued employment; no meeting of minds if he never received it	AT&T: mutual promise to waive jury trial constitutes consideration; terms were communicated and accepted	Court: Mutual assent and consideration exist; MAA valid under Ohio law
Whether a genuine factual dispute about who accessed the e‑mail precludes arbitration	Uszak: testimony shows password sharing and leaves open that another employee accessed his e‑mail	AT&T: no evidence someone had e‑mail password; OPUS and e‑mail passwords differed; no motive for coworker to accept on his behalf	Court: District court resolved factual dispute after hearing; finding that Uszak accessed the MAA was not clearly erroneous
Procedural unconscionability of MAA	Uszak: MAA procedurally unconscionable (raised on appeal)	AT&T: issue not raised below; arbitration program provided opt‑out and communications	Court: Issue waived because not argued in district court

Burden v. Check Into Cash of Ky., LLC, 267 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for motions to compel arbitration)
Glazer v. Lehman Bros., 394 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2005) (factual findings after evidentiary hearing reviewed for clear error)
Javitch v. First Union Sec., Inc., 315 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2003) (FAA requires enforcement of arbitration agreements)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (federal policy favoring arbitration)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (arbitration agreements reviewed under applicable state contract law)
Harmon v. Philip Morris, Inc., 697 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (acknowledgment receipt alone may not constitute acceptance of arbitration program)
Legair v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., [citation="213 F. App'x 436"] (6th Cir. 2007) (failure to opt out after notice can demonstrate agreement to be bound)