Jack Chester v. Directv, L.L.C.
607 F. App'x 362
5th Cir.2015Background
- DIRECTV acquired Bruister in 2008 and hired former Bruister employees, including Jack S. Chester; DIRECTV says new hires were required to sign arbitration agreements but cannot locate Chester’s signed agreement.
- Chester swore (in an unsworn declaration) that he did not sign an arbitration agreement and would have remembered any threat to terminate him to force signature.
- Chester sued DIRECTV in two federal actions: one for unpaid overtime and one for age discrimination; DIRECTV moved to compel arbitration in both.
- In the unpaid-overtime case the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found DIRECTV failed to prove by a preponderance that an arbitration agreement existed or prove its contents, so it denied the motion.
- The district court in the age-discrimination case denied the motion to compel based on the unpaid-overtime decision; DIRECTV appealed both denials.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Chester met the threshold to put the existence of the arbitration agreement in issue and that the district court’s factual finding that DIRECTV failed to prove the agreement’s existence or contents was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chester) | Defendant's Argument (DIRECTV) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chester put the making of an arbitration agreement in issue | He unequivocally denied signing and submitted an affidavit explaining why he didn’t sign | Any uncertainty was mere lack of memory and procedural documents (offer letter, FAQ) show obligation to sign | Held: Chester met the threshold by unequivocal denial plus some evidence; the issue was properly in dispute |
| Whether DIRECTV proved existence and contents of a lost arbitration agreement | Chester argued DIRECTV failed to prove the agreement existed or its contents (lost contract rule) | DIRECTV argued standard evidence (offer letter, FAQ, witness testimony, ordinary practice) sufficed and file loss explains missing agreement | Held: DIRECTV failed to prove by preponderance both that Chester signed and the specific contents of a missing agreement; district court’s adverse credibility/findings were not clearly erroneous |
| Appropriate procedure/remedy in the second (age-discrimination) case | Chester argued denial was proper because the existence was disputed and a bench trial was required | DIRECTV sought reversal and a directive to arbitrate (did not seek remand for an evidentiary hearing on appeal) | Held: Court refused to render judgment for DIRECTV and noted DIRECTV waived any remand argument by not seeking it on appeal; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Orr, 294 F.3d 702 (5th Cir.) (self-serving affidavits may be insufficient to put making of arbitration agreement in issue)
- Cal. Fina Grp., Inc. v. Herrin, 379 F.3d 311 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of interpretation and scope of arbitration agreements; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- T & R Enters., Inc. v. Cont’l Grain Co., 613 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir.) (party must unequivocally deny agreement and produce some evidence to put making in issue)
- Banks v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Am., Inc., 435 F.3d 538 (5th Cir.) (proponent of lost contract must prove former existence, present unavailability, and contents under Mississippi law)
- Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir.) (party is bound by the relief it seeks on appeal)