Peterson v. Salvation Army, The, 1:25-cv-00084

Plaintiff Vanessa Peterson, who is legally blind, worked for the Salvation Army for 15 years in Kansas City and accepted a new position with them in Denver in 2023, relying on assurances that previously provided accommodations would continue.
As part of her onboarding in Denver, Peterson met with Assistant HR Director Kelli Licata and signed various documents, including a Mutual Arbitration Agreement.
Peterson did not dispute signing the Arbitration Agreement but claimed she did not have the opportunity to review it with her screen reader at home and did not recall discussing its significance with Licata.
After starting her new role, Peterson alleged that she did not receive promised accommodations and faced a toxic work environment, which led to her resignation and the filing of her lawsuit with seven state-law claims.
Defendant Salvation Army moved to compel arbitration per the signed agreement; Peterson opposed, citing lack of informed consent and failure to review the document in an accessible way.
The Court carefully considered evidence and briefing, and then ruled on the motion to compel arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of valid arbitration agreement	Peterson is blind and did not fully review the Arbitration Agreement before signing; claims she did not know its significance.	Peterson signed the agreement and was not prevented from reviewing it; the agreement was clear.	Existence established—agreement is valid and enforceable.
Opportunity to review documents	Peterson asserts she was not given time or ability to take documents home and review with a screen reader.	Licata did not prevent taking documents home or deny requests for time; Peterson did not ask for more time.	Plaintiff’s failure to ask for more time does not invalidate the agreement.
Unconscionability/fraud/duress	Plaintiff implies lack of meaningful choice due to disability and circumstances.	No evidence of fraud, duress, or unconscionability; Plaintiff chose to sign without reading.	No unconscionability; no fraud or duress proved.
Effect of unilateral mistake	Plaintiff argues agreement should be rescinded due to her mistake about what she signed.	Mistake was due to lack of diligence, not to wrongful conduct by defendant.	Unilateral mistake without due diligence does not void agreement.

Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court’s directive to compel arbitration if agreement exists)
Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., 811 F.3d 371 (Standard for reviewing enforceability of arbitration agreements)
Riley Mfg. Co. v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 157 F.3d 775 (Tenth Circuit rule on arbitration presumption and disputes)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (Application of state contract law to arbitration agreements)