Hyde v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 2011 Ohio 4234

Hyde sued Sherwin-Williams for age discrimination under R.C. 4112 et seq. after termination in June 2009.
Hyde acknowledged and agreed to Sherwin-Williams' Problem Resolution Procedures (PRP) and Employment Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Policy (EDMAP) as a condition of employment.
PRP provides four-step internal review; EDMAP adds mediation/arbitration for unresolved disputes and is described as exclusive, final, and binding.
Hyde challenged the PRP/EDMAP as ambiguous (permitting voluntary or mandatory arbitration) and sought court proceedings; Sherwin-Williams sought a stay pending arbitration.
Trial court denied the stay; this appeal followed; the issue is whether Hyde’s claims fall within mandatory arbitration under PRP/EDMAP, and whether a stay was required under the FAA and Ohio law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PRP/EDMAP require mandatory arbitration of Hyde's claim	Hyde argues language is ambiguous and not mandatorily binding	Sherwin-Williams argues PRP/EDMAP mandatorily bind and require arbitration	No mandatory arbitration; procedures are not clearly exclusive or binding on Hyde
Whether the court should stay proceedings pending arbitration under FAA/RC 2711	Arbitration not mandatory; stay not required	Arbitration should proceed under PRP/EDMAP	Stay denied; trial court did not err in not compelling arbitration
Whether Hyde assented to exclusive remedy provision in PRP/EDMAP	Acknowledgments are consistent with mandatory arbitration	Acknowledgments do not conclusively show mandatory arbitration	No exclusive, binding agreement to arbitrate; arbitration not mandatory under the policy

Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 83 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 1998) (strong preference for arbitration; stay appropriate when applicable)
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (arbitration clauses generally favored and enforceable when scope cover disputes)