Robert Kay v. The Minacs Group (USA), Inc., 580 F. App'x 327

In 2011, Kay, age 60, was fired by Minacs and replaced by a younger worker.
Kay sued in federal court for age discrimination under ADEA and Michigan ELCRA.
Kay previously worked for Phoenix Group (1995); Minacs purchased Phoenix assets in 2001.
Kay’s complaint referenced Paragraph 10 stating he began working in 1995, suggesting continuity with Phoenix.
Minacs moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the Phoenix “Receipt of Policies and Procedures,” but the policy handbook itself was not produced.
The district court treated Paragraph 10 as a judicial admission and found the Receipt applicable, then Kay sought reconsideration and evidence contrary to that conclusion.
On appeal, the court noted that only the Phoenix handbook contents could trigger arbitration and that Minacs failed to supply those contents; the case was reversed and remanded for proceedings on Kay’s civil-rights claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Receipt covers Kay’s civil-rights claims	Kay: arbitration scope limited to the handbook; claims not covered	Minacs: broad language covers any disputes arising from the Policies and Procedures	No arbitration for civil rights claims; scope not shown to cover them
Whether Paragraph 10 is a judicial admission that Phoenix and Minacs are the same	Kay did not intend to concede operational continuity	District court treated as an admission	Not a deliberate, clear admission; not binding as judicial admission.

Mazera v. Varsity Ford Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 565 F.3d 997 (6th Cir.2009) (determines arbitrability under state contract law; referable scope matters)
Landis v. Pinnacle Eye Care, LLC, 537 F.3d 559 (6th Cir.2008) (scope of arbitrability under FAA; referable question)
Hergenreder v. Bickford Senior Living Grp., LLC, 656 F.3d 411 (6th Cir.2011) (state contract law governs formation and scope of arbitration agreements)
Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (Arbitration provisions are enforceable on equal footing with other contracts; no suspect-status rule)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (FAA preempts state rules that treat arbitration provisions differently; enforceability on terms)
Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 317 F.3d 646 (6th Cir.2003) (arbitration clause scope can be broad when language supports)
EEOC v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 F.3d 448 (6th Cir.1998) (recognizes arbitration scope interpretations in employment disputes)