Hazlett v. Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, Inc.
3:20-cv-00804
| M.D. Tenn. | Feb 19, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Mireham Hazlett sued Family Dollar alleging national-origin and pregnancy discrimination and ADA claims; Family Dollar moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to compel arbitration under a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims signed during electronic onboarding.
- Family Dollar submitted corporate declarations and Taleo records showing Hazlett accepted an offer conditioned on executing the Arbitration Agreement and electronically signed it on October 14, 2015 by entering the last four digits of her SSN; a copy was allegedly emailed to her.
- The Arbitration Agreement explicitly waived jury trial and covered employment-discrimination claims; onboarding required assent to proceed.
- Hazlett submitted a sworn declaration stating the store manager controlled the onboarding computer, clicked through documents, rapidly scrolled, and she only entered the last four SSN digits without reading or being told she was signing an arbitration agreement.
- Family Dollar pointed to later manager training, intranet availability of the handbook and agreement, and receipt of emailed documents as evidence Hazlett knew or should have known about the Arbitration Agreement.
- The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act and Tennessee contract-law principles (meeting of the minds), used a summary-judgment-like standard because parties relied on extrinsic documents, and denied the motion to compel arbitration due to a genuine factual dispute about assent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the parties form a valid agreement to arbitrate (mutual assent)? | Hazlett: no meeting of the minds; manager controlled computer, she had no opportunity to read or assent. | Family Dollar: Taleo records show electronic signature (last 4 SSN) and onboarding required assent; agreement is binding. | Genuine factual dispute exists over assent; court declines to find contract as a matter of law. |
| Does the electronic signature and Taleo audit trail conclusively prove assent? | No — the signature entry is contested; Hazlett says she only keyed digits when directed and never reviewed terms. | Yes — system captured steps and emailed completed agreement to Hazlett. | Not conclusive; disputed facts preclude compelling arbitration. |
| Do post-hire materials (email, handbook, later training, intranet access) cure lack of initial notice? | No — post-hire receipt or buried handbook references do not retroactively establish assent at hire. | Yes — handbook and training put Hazlett on notice and the agreement was available. | Court: post-hire materials do not overcome the disputed fact whether initial assent occurred. |
| What procedural standard governs a motion to compel when extrinsic evidence is submitted? | Hazlett: (implicit) factual dispute should defeat summary resolution. | Family Dollar: seek dismissal/compel arbitration; points to contractual evidence. | Court: apply FAA principles and a summary-judgment-like standard; Rule 12(b)(6) inappropriate; motion denied on factual dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (superseding discussion of FAA and its purpose favoring arbitration)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements)
- Great Earth Cos. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2002) (when parties rely on extrinsic documents, a summary-judgment-like standard applies to motions to compel arbitration)
- Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2000) (FAA intended to overcome judicial reluctance to enforce arbitration agreements)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tarrant, 363 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2012) (Tennessee law: mutual assent/meeting of the minds required to form a contract)
- Doe v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., Inc., 46 S.W.3d 191 (Tenn. 2001) (an enforceable contract must result from meeting of the minds)