Cunningham v. Henry Ford Health System, 2:17-cv-11015

Plaintiff Michelle Cunningham was hired by Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) in August 2015, completed onboarding through HFHS's online HR portal, and was terminated in May 2016.
During online onboarding Cunningham checked a box labeled that checking the box was “equivalent to a handwritten signature” for an "Agreement for Mandatory Arbitration (New Hires)."
Cunningham contends she did not knowingly or voluntarily agree to arbitration, did not physically sign the arbitration agreement, does not recall seeing it, and was not expressly told to consult an attorney.
HFHS moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the district-court proceedings.
The court treated the motion under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), found no genuine factual dispute about formation, and analyzed enforceability, scope, and arbitrability of Cunningham’s federal and state claims.
The court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, the claims fell within its scope (including Title VII and ADA), and dismissed the case without prejudice, compelling arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parties formed a valid arbitration agreement	Cunningham: she did not knowingly agree; she didn’t physically sign and does not recall the agreement	HFHS: online checkbox with acknowledgment equals a signature under Michigan electronic-signature law; agreement was accepted in onboarding	Held: Valid agreement formed; no genuine factual dispute about formation
Whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary	Cunningham: lacked notice, no counsel advice, couldn’t review collectively, was misled by other signed docs	HFHS: clear text, heading and disclaimer, opportunity to seek counsel and nearly three weeks before start date, continued employment was consideration	Held: Waiver was knowing and voluntary under totality of circumstances
Whether plaintiff’s statutory claims fall within the arbitration scope	Cunningham: seeks judicial forum for statutory rights (Title VII, ADA, Elliott-Larsen)	HFHS: agreement expressly covers state and federal statutory claims, including civil-rights and ADA claims	Held: Claims fall within the arbitration agreement’s clear scope
Whether federal statutory claims (Title VII, ADA) are nonarbitrable	Cunningham: argues Congress intended judicial forum for ADA (implied)	HFHS: FAA and Supreme Court precedent allow arbitration of federal statutes if vindication of rights is possible	Held: No showing Congress barred arbitration; ADA and Title VII arbitrable; arbitration ordered and case dismissed without prejudice

CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (establishes federal policy favoring arbitration)
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (federal statutory claims may be arbitrable if rights can be vindicated)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (use ordinary state-law contract principles to decide formation)
Hergenreder v. Bickford Senior Living Group, LLC, 656 F.3d 411 (Sixth Circuit factors for knowing and voluntary waiver)
Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 317 F.3d 646 (Sixth Circuit on enforceability and arbitration)
Tillman v. Macy's, Inc., 735 F.3d 453 (employer not required to force employees to read arbitration documents to satisfy notice)
Cooper v. MRM Inv. Co., 367 F.3d 493 (Title VII not excluded from arbitration)
Green v. Ameritech Corp., 200 F.3d 967 (district court may dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (arbitrability of statutory claims)
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (broad construction of interstate commerce under FAA)