Frade v. Luxottica of America Inc., 1:21-cv-11101

Plaintiff Kristi Frade sued former employer Luxottica under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B for workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
Luxottica moved to compel arbitration under its Dispute Resolution Agreement and to stay proceedings under the FAA.
Parties stipulated that someone logged into iGrow using Frade’s six‑digit ID and password, opened the Employee Guide, typed Frade’s name in the electronic signature box, and selected “I wish to participate.”
Frade denied personally executing or receiving the Employee Guide and testified her supervisor, Kevin Narciso, had her password and may have accessed her account to complete overdue tasks.
The court held a targeted evidentiary hearing on whether Frade herself assented and found Luxottica failed to prove, by a preponderance, that Frade (rather than Narciso) executed the agreement.
Court denied Luxottica’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered the parties to file a joint proposed scheduling order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Frade agreed to arbitrate via iGrow	Frade did not sign, did not select “I wish to participate,” and did not receive the agreement	Luxottica’s electronic records show a login with Frade’s ID, a typed signature, and a selection to participate	Denied — Luxottica failed to prove Frade personally assented; credible testimony and plausible alternative (supervisor) cast doubt
Whether disputed formation facts require an evidentiary hearing	A hearing is required to resolve who assented	Employer argued records established assent without further factfinding	Held that a targeted evidentiary hearing was required and was held; factual dispute resolved against Luxottica
Which party bears burden to prove existence of an arbitration agreement	Frade: Luxottica must prove assent	Luxottica: records suffice to meet burden	Court reiterated burden is on the party seeking to compel and found Luxottica did not satisfy it
Adequacy of employer notice/rollout of the new agreement	Frade: no companywide notice; agreement rolled out years into employment not during onboarding	Luxottica: communications and iGrow task notices placed the agreement before employees	Court found Luxottica offered insufficient proof of notice or a formal rollout, undermining inference of individual assent

Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin Am., LLC, 21 F.4th 168 (1st Cir. 2021) (district court must resolve factual disputes about contract formation before compelling arbitration)
Mowbray v. Moseley, Hallgarten, Estabrook & Weeden, Inc., 795 F.2d 1111 (1st Cir. 1986) (when making of an arbitration agreement is in issue, district court must hold a hearing under 9 U.S.C. § 4)
Boykin v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Mich., LLC, 3 F.4th 832 (6th Cir. 2021) (evidentiary hearings under § 4 should be targeted to disputed contract‑formation questions)