CRUMP v. METASOURCE ACQUISITIONS, LLC, 2:18-cv-03313

Crump began working for MetaSource on Feb. 20, 2017; on Feb. 24, 2017 he signed the final page of an employee handbook that included an arbitration clause under the heading “MetaSource Alternative Dispute Resolution Program.”
Within days his supervisor Brodecki made unwanted sexual advances and performed unwanted oral sex on Crump; Crump alleges he was constructively discharged on March 27, 2017 and sued for discrimination and harassment.
The arbitration paragraph appeared on the handbook’s last page (page 39) directly beneath an “Acknowledgement and Agreement” section; the same page also stated the company could revise the handbook’s provisions in writing and could do so “with or without cause or notice.”
The ADR program itself was in a separate document (no signatures) and referenced AAA administration; Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the signed handbook page.
After limited discovery on arbitrability, the court evaluated the renewed motions under the summary-judgment standard and held the arbitration promise illusory because MetaSource reserved unfettered written modification rights without notice or employee-acceptance mechanisms.
The court also held continued at-will employment did not supply the required “new” consideration to validate the arbitration agreement, relying on Pennsylvania contract principles and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s guidance in Socko.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists given MetaSource’s reservation to unilaterally modify handbook terms	Crump: reservation to revise handbook (including arbitration clause) without notice or acceptance makes the arbitration promise illusory and lacking consideration	MetaSource: arbitration clause is separate from remainder of handbook (distinct paragraph/heading) so company cannot unilaterally alter arbitration obligations	Court: Arbitration clause is part of the handbook and subject to the unilateral modification language; promise to arbitrate is illusory and unenforceable
Whether continued at-will employment supplies alternative consideration to validate the arbitration agreement	Crump: continued at-will employment cannot constitute "new and valuable" consideration	MetaSource: even if clause were illusory, continued employment is sufficient consideration	Court: Under Pennsylvania precedent (Socko and related handbook cases), mere continuation of at-will employment is not "new" consideration; arbitration agreement remains unenforceable

Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) (procedures for resolving motions to compel arbitration; when to permit limited discovery)
White v. Sunoco, Inc., 870 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2017) (summary-judgment standard for motions to compel arbitration)
Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008) (FAA establishes national policy favoring arbitration where parties agree)
Blair v. Scott Specialty Gases, 283 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2002) (handbook arbitration clause not illusory where employer’s amendment power limited by notice and acceptance mechanics)
SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 175 A.3d 273 (Pa. 2017) (illusory promises lack consideration under Pennsylvania law)
Socko v. Mid-Atl. Sys. of CPA, Inc., 126 A.3d 1266 (Pa. 2015) (continued at-will employment alone is not sufficient "new" consideration for post-hire obligations)
Dumais v. American Golf Corp., 299 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2002) (arbitration clauses allowing unilateral employer modification are generally illusory)
Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 584 F.3d 513 (3d Cir. 2009) (party cannot be compelled to arbitrate absent an agreement)
Flintkote Co. v. Aviva PLC, 769 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2014) (two-step FAA analysis: valid agreement and scope of agreement)