Leonard v. Delaware North Companies Sport Service, Inc., 861 F.3d 727

Matthew Leonard volunteered for Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc. (DNCS) at Busch Stadium on May 30, 2013; DNCS donated $1,096.57 to Washington University for the event and Leonard received no pay.
Three weeks before the event Leonard signed a one-page Volunteer Release, Waiver and Indemnification Agreement that included a broad mutual arbitration clause covering "any dispute arising from the Activity."
Leonard sued in state court alleging violations of federal and Missouri minimum-wage laws and fraud, contending the donation scheme effectively denied him wages.
He moved to avoid arbitration, arguing the release was unconscionable and lacked consideration; he also argued his fraud claim was outside the arbitration clause.
The district court compelled arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice; the Eighth Circuit reviewed the decision de novo and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the volunteer release is unconscionable	Leonard: procedural and substantive unconscionability due to boilerplate form and unequal bargaining	DNCS: agreement was clear, not oppressive, and Leonard had time to withdraw	Not unconscionable — totality of circumstances did not show inequality so extreme as to void the contract
Whether the arbitration agreement lacks consideration	Leonard: no consideration because he was unpaid and promise to volunteer insufficient	DNCS: consideration existed — opportunity to volunteer and DNCS's donation were bargained-for benefits/detriments	Consideration exists; presumption from recital of consideration stands, plaintiff failed to rebut it
Whether fraud claim falls outside the arbitration clause	Leonard: fraud claim independent and therefore not governed by arbitration	DNCS: clause is broad and covers disputes arising from the Activity, including factual disputes about volunteer vs. employee status	Fraud claim governed by arbitration — factual allegations touch matters covered by the clause
Standard of review and scope of arbitration clause	N/A (procedural)	N/A	De novo review of order to compel arbitration; ambiguities resolved in favor of arbitrability; broad clauses cover disputes that "touch matters" in agreement

Pleasants v. Am. Exp. Co., 541 F.3d 853 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for compelling arbitration)
Torres v. Simpatico, Inc., 781 F.3d 963 (8th Cir.) (factual-findings clear-error standard)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (arbitration is a matter of contract; FAA enforces arbitration agreements)
Cicle v. Chase Bank USA, 583 F.3d 549 (8th Cir.) (general contract defenses can invalidate arbitration agreements; doubts resolved for arbitrability)
Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (state-law defenses to contract apply to arbitration agreements)
Eaton v. CMH Homes, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. banc) (Missouri test for procedural and substantive unconscionability)
Brewer v. Missouri Title Loans, 364 S.W.3d 486 (Mo. banc) (example of unconscionability where terms were oppressive and nonnegotiable)
Earl v. St. Louis Univ., 875 S.W.2d 234 (Mo. App.) (consideration may be a benefit or detriment)
Tinch v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 S.W.3d 747 (Mo. App.) (recitation of consideration creates presumption it exists)
Jimenez v. Cintas Corp., 475 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. App.) (promise of at-will employment insufficient consideration for arbitration)
Unison Co. v. Juhl Energy Dev., Inc., 789 F.3d 816 (8th Cir.) (liberal construction of arbitration clauses; "touch matters" test)
3M Co. v. Amtex Sec., Inc., 542 F.3d 1193 (8th Cir.) (arbitration clause covers disputes unless clause cannot reasonably be interpreted to do so)