Marzette v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 501
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs applied to AB using an employment application stating any claims would be subject to binding arbitration under AB's DRP.
- Plaintiffs were hired as security guards, paid hourly, and were union members.
- AB's DRP provides a three-step process: local management review, mediation, arbitration, and covers claims arising out of employment and within the scope of AB's employees.
- Plaintiffs filed a Missouri Human Rights Act discrimination suit in March 2010; Defendants moved to compel arbitration in February 2011.
- The trial court denied arbitration, finding no acceptance, lack of consideration, and DRP not applicable to Plaintiffs; Defendants appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration agreements are supported by consideration | Marzette/Dunmire contend consideration exists (e.g., AB's willingness to consider employment) | A-B argues devotion to consideration is lacking; offers and mutual promises do not constitute valid consideration | Not supported; no valid consideration for arbitration |
| Whether Plaintiffs accepted the DRP terms and thus formed arbitration agreements | Plaintiffs did not accept DRP terms as a separate contract; only general knowledge of DRP | Defendants contend acceptance occurred through employment application | No acceptance; DRP terms not incorporated as a contract with Plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunzie v. Jack-In-The-Box, Inc., 330 S.W.3d 476 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (arbitration requires valid offer, acceptance, and consideration)
- Miles Homes Division of Insilco Corp. v. First State Bank of Joplin, 782 S.W.2d 798 (Mo.App. S.D.1990) (mutuality of consideration and typical contract elements)
- Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac, 321 S.W.3d 429 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (arbitration requires consideration; promises must be reciprocal)
- Morrow v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 15 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (continued employment cannot be consideration for arbitration where not promised at formation)
- Walker v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc., 400 F.3d 370 (6th Cir.2005) (employer promise to consider employment is a point of contention for consideration)