2019 Ohio 211
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Erick Jones worked for Carrols LLC (Burger King) from 2004 and was terminated in December 2012; Carrols adopted a Mandatory Arbitration Policy (MAP) effective August 1, 2006 and notified existing employees by memorandum/poster rather than requiring signatures.
- Jones sued in 2013 alleging discrimination, IIED, invasion of privacy, negligent supervision, and statutory/constitutional wage-record claims; Carrols moved to compel arbitration under the MAP.
- Trial court twice granted renewed motions to compel arbitration and dismissed; this appeal is the third review by the Ninth District after remands for further findings.
- The trial court below found the MAP valid, not unconscionable, applicable to Jones’s claims (including post-termination torts and Ohio constitutional/ statutory wage claims), and that Jones waived jury trial by agreeing to arbitrate.
- The majority affirms dismissal; a dissent would have found the MAP procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MAP is unconscionable (procedural and substantive) | Jones: MAP is procedurally oppressive (no real assent) and substantively one‑sided, ambiguous, and could impose unfair costs | Carrols: MAP was reasonably communicated; terms are mutual, not unfair or misleading; plaintiff gave assent by continuing employment | Court: Jones failed to prove substantive unconscionability; because substantive prong not met, no need to decide procedural prong; arbitration enforceable |
| Whether class/collective waiver violates public policy | Jones: MAP’s bar on class/aggregate actions violates NLRA and public policy | Carrols: Class/collective waiver enforceable; federal law and FAA favor enforcement | Court: Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis requires enforcement of individualized arbitration clauses; waiver not against public policy |
| Whether MAP lacked consideration / was illusory | Jones: New MAP imposed without new consideration; employer could unilaterally amend making contract illusory | Carrols: Mutual agreement to arbitrate is sufficient consideration; no unilateral amendment clause applies to MAP | Court: Mutual agreement to arbitrate supplies consideration; no evidence MAP was illusory |
| Whether Jones’s claims fall outside MAP scope (post‑termination torts, constitutional wage claims) | Jones: Defamation, false light, IIED occurred after termination and constitutional claim not covered | Carrols: MAP covers any dispute arising out of or relating to employment, including state statutes analogous to FLSA | Court: Claims arise out of employment and fall within the broad arbitration clause, including Article II, Section 34a/R.C. 4111.14 claims |
| Whether Jones waived jury trial | Jones: Never knowingly waived constitutional jury right | Carrols: Waiver is consequence of arbitration agreement | Court: Waiver of jury trial is a necessary consequence of arbitration and is not unconscionable; enforceable once MAP valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 157 Ohio App.3d 150 (2004) (discusses Ohio policy favoring arbitration and unconscionability framework)
- Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 122 Ohio St.3d 63 (2009) (explains factors for procedural unconscionability and totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Academy of Medicine v. Aetna Health, Inc., 108 Ohio St.3d 185 (2006) (broad vs. narrow arbitration clause analysis)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (arbitration of statutory claims preserves substantive rights; forum allocation)
- Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (SCOTUS holds individualized arbitration agreements that bar class/collective actions are enforceable)