Kathryn Jimenez, Petitioner/Respondent v. Cintas Corporation, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 11

Kathryn Jimenez worked for Cintas as a Fire Service Technician from Dec. 2011 until her termination in June 2012 and filed discrimination/harassment claims in July 2013 against Cintas and two managers.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration relying on a December 12, 2011 "Missouri Employment Agreement" signed by Jimenez, which invoked the FAA and required arbitration of employment-related claims but enumerated specific exclusions.
Section 8 required arbitration of most employment claims but excluded workers’ compensation, unemployment claims, administrative charges, and "claims for a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief concerning any provision of Section 4."
Section 4 contained non‑compete/confidentiality covenants and an express clause allowing Employer (Cintas) to seek injunctive relief in court to enforce Section 4 and to include related injunctive claims arising from the same facts.
At an evidentiary hearing Jimenez testified she did not recall reading or signing the Agreement and did not intend to be bound by it; the trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding lack of consideration and unconscionability.
On appeal the court addressed only consideration and mutuality, holding the arbitration provision lacked consideration because (1) at‑will employment is not valid consideration under Missouri law, and (2) the promises to arbitrate lacked mutuality since Cintas retained a unilateral right to litigate injunctive claims under Section 4.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether at‑will employment constitutes consideration for an arbitration agreement	Jimenez: at‑will employment provides no consideration	Cintas: offer of "new/future" at‑will employment is sufficient consideration	Held: At‑will employment (new or continued) is not valid consideration under Missouri law
Whether mutual promises to arbitrate supply consideration	Jimenez: agreement is not mutual because employer can seek court injunctive relief while employee must arbitrate	Cintas: Section 8 is mutual; exclusions are limited and apply equally	Held: Not mutual—Section 4 specifically lets Cintas seek injunctive relief in court, rendering employer’s promise illusory and depriving agreement of mutuality and consideration
Whether the party seeking to compel arbitration met its burden to show a valid arbitration agreement	Jimenez: burden not met; agreement lacks consideration and mutuality	Cintas: produced signed agreement and FAA invocation; asserted valid contract	Held: Cintas failed its burden because contract formation (consideration/mutuality) was lacking
Whether the court must resolve signature/assent issues before considering enforceability under the FAA	Jimenez: signature disputed; fairness concerns	Cintas: FAA applies if contract exists; signature is evidentiary	Held: Court declined to resolve signature/assent because lack of consideration was dispositive; FAA enforcement presupposes a valid contract

Marzette v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 371 S.W.3d 49 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (arbitration is contractual; contract principles govern formation)
Morrow v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 15 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (continued at‑will employment does not constitute consideration for arbitration)
Whitworth v. McBride & Son Homes, Inc., 344 S.W.3d 730 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (party seeking arbitration bears burden to prove agreement; at‑will employment offers not materially different in some contexts)
Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac, 321 S.W.3d 429 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (mutuality of obligation required where consideration is based on reciprocal promises)
Kunzie v. Jack-In-The-Box, Inc., 330 S.W.3d 476 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (consideration is essential for arbitration contract formation)
State ex rel. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. banc 2006) (Missouri law governs whether parties formed a valid arbitration agreement)