Gezu v. Charter Communications, 17 F.4th 547

Gezu worked for Charter (previously Time Warner Cable) from Dec 2007 to May 2019 and alleges race and national-origin discrimination and wrongful termination.
On Oct 6, 2017 Charter emailed active, non-union employees announcing Solution Channel: a binding arbitration program with automatic enrollment unless employees opted out within 30 days; the email linked to full arbitration terms on the intranet.
The arbitration agreement covered employment-related claims including discrimination and retaliation under federal and state law.
Gezu sued pro se in June 2020 under Title VII and § 1981. Charter moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3), submitting declarations from HR employees (Fries and later Vasey) attesting to email delivery/opening.
The magistrate recommended, and the district court adopted, an order compelling arbitration and dismissing without prejudice; Gezu appealed, challenging formation, evidentiary rulings, and the court’s procedural handling of filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a binding arbitration agreement was formed (valid modification of at-will employment)	Gezu says he never agreed and did not receive/read the notice	Charter says the Oct. 6 email provided unequivocal notice and auto-enrollment; non-opt-out + continued work = acceptance	Agreement valid: notice proven via email and mailbox-presumption; acceptance shown by failure to opt out and continued employment
Admissibility of Fries’s declaration (unsworn/not notarized)	Fries’s declaration is inadmissible because not sworn/not notarized	The declaration is signed and made under penalty of perjury, satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 1746	Admissible: unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury is permissible
Consideration of Vasey’s declaration filed with defendant’s reply	Vasey’s declaration should not be considered as new evidence on reply	Vasey rebuts Gezu’s assertion he didn’t open the email; reply may rebut nonmovant’s response	Plaintiff forfeited challenge for not raising below; in any event reply evidence was proper rebuttal and the court did not err
District court’s striking of plaintiff’s surreply	Gezu argues surreply should be allowed to respond to new reply evidence	Charter argues surreplies are not permitted as of right and no extraordinary circumstances exist	No abuse of discretion: local rules do not allow surreplies as of right and none of the required extraordinary circumstances were shown

Kubala v. Supreme Prod. Servs., Inc., 830 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2016) (two-step inquiry: contract formation then scope; standards for modifying at-will employment)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (arbitrability questions governed by state contract law unless parties agree otherwise)
In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2002) (employer must unequivocally notify employee of definite changes to employment terms)
Hathaway v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 711 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1986) (principles for notice of change to employment terms)
In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2006) (employees can be deemed to accept modifications if given opt-out and they fail to opt out)
Duron v. Albertson’s LLC, 560 F.3d 288 (5th Cir. 2009) (mailbox rule: sworn statement of mailing creates presumption of receipt)
Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Ret. Plan, 269 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussion of mailbox rule and presumption of receipt)
Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2007) (review of district court’s discretion in motions to strike)