Carla Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc., d/b/a Bristol Manor, and David Furnell, 450 S.W.3d 770

Bristol Care promoted Baker to facility administrator and both the employment and arbitration agreements were signed contemporaneously.
Arbitration provision states claims will be resolved by binding arbitration and lists consideration as Baker’s continued employment with mutual promises to arbitrate.
Section 3 of the arbitration agreement preserves Baker’s at-will status and Bristol’s right to terminate with notice or pay, signaling ongoing at-will employment.
The arbitration agreement allows Bristol to amend, modify, or revoke the agreement with thirty days’ prior written notice to Baker.
Baker was terminated from her administrator position, prompting a class overtime action against Bristol and Furnell, and Bristol moved to compel arbitration.
The circuit court overruled the motion to compel arbitration, and Bristol appealed seeking reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of arbitration agreement	Baker contends lack of consideration voids agreement.	Bristol argues contemporaneous promises and mutual arbitration terms constitute consideration.	Arbitration agreement invalid for lack of consideration.
Continued at-will employment as consideration	Continued at-will status is not valid consideration.	Continued employment with benefits constitutes consideration.	Continued at-will employment does not constitute valid consideration.
Mutuality and illusory promise	Bristol’s unilateral right to modify retroactively makes promises illusory.	Notice provision ensures binding mutual arbitration promises.	Promises are illusory due to unilateral retroactive modification.
Interplay of multiple promises	Arbitration promise analyzed as part of overall bargained-for exchange validity.	Arbitration clause can be considered via the broader contract formed by promotion.	No separate consideration needed for contemporaneous promises; however, overall exchange fails.

Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (delegation of arbitrator authority to decide enforceability)
Morrow v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 15 (Mo. App. 2008) (continued employment as consideration; separation of arbitration from formation)
Purcell Tire & Rubber Co. v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. banc 2001) (integration of original bargain; no new consideration required for existing terms)
Noe, 475 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. 1972) (continued employment sufficient consideration in some contexts)
Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987) (FAA preemption of state-law special rules on arbitration formation)
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (general preemption principles for arbitration contracts under FAA)
Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (FAA preemption and state-law inference in arbitration)
State ex rel. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. banc 2006) (arbitration agreements and mutuality under Missouri law)
Bernard v. Johnson, not applicable (not applicable) (placeholder to maintain format integrity)