Timothy Boykin v. Family Dollar Stores of Mich., 3 F.4th 832

Background

Plaintiff Timothy Boykin, a long‑time Family Dollar manager, sued after his 2018 termination alleging race and age discrimination following an incident with a customer.
Family Dollar moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, submitting a HR declaration and a one‑page training record showing Boykin completed an online arbitration training on July 15, 2013.
Boykin submitted a sworn affidavit denying he ever signed or was told arbitration was a condition of employment; his personnel file produced by Family Dollar contained no arbitration agreement.
The district court treated Family Dollar’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6), relied on outside evidence, characterized Boykin’s affidavit as “self‑serving,” and dismissed the suit while compelling arbitration.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit held the district court should have applied procedures analogous to Rule 56 when §4 of the FAA is invoked and that Boykin’s sworn denial plus gaps in employer records created a genuine factual dispute.
The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for summary §4 proceedings and limited discovery on the contract‑formation question.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedural standard for a motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. §4	Boykin: court must treat formation disputes like genuine‑fact disputes and apply summary‑judgment standards	Family Dollar: district court may resolve at pleading stage (used Rule 12(b)(6))	Court: §4 disputes over making of the agreement should be assessed using Rule 56 summary‑judgment standards (or held for a §4 summary trial)
Whether Boykin raised a genuine factual dispute about formation (i.e., he accepted the arbitration agreement)	Boykin: sworn, unequivocal affidavit denying he ever consented or was informed arbitration was a condition; personnel file lacked agreement	Family Dollar: HR declaration and training/completion record show Boykin clicked “I ACCEPT” on July 15, 2013; Boykin’s affidavit is self‑serving/sham	Court: Boykin’s sworn denial plus absence of arbitration paperwork and employer confusion create a genuine dispute requiring further §4 proceedings/targeted discovery
Whether the arbitrator (per contract clause) should decide formation	Boykin: court must decide whether a contract exists before sending to arbitration	Family Dollar: delegation clause delegates formation disputes to arbitrator	Court: delegation clause cannot be dispositive where the existence of mutual consent to arbitrate is itself disputed; court must resolve the formation question under §4 procedures
Whether continued employment can constitute acceptance absent proof of notice	Boykin: he did not receive notice and denies assent; no records show notice	Family Dollar: acceptance may be implied by continued employment when acceptance is a condition of employment	Court: continued employment can bind an employee only if there is evidence the employee knew arbitration was a condition; here Family Dollar produced no such proof

Key Cases Cited

Great Earth Cos. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878 (6th Cir.) (procedural standards for arbitration motions)
Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (summary character of arbitration‑related proceedings)
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (scope of issues for courts under FAA)
Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (forum‑selection/venue principles distinct from arbitration procedure)
Rent‑A‑Ctr., West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (arbitrability gateway doctrine and delegation clause limits)
Tinder v. Pinkerton Sec., 305 F.3d 728 (affidavit of lack of recollection insufficient when documentary evidence shows delivery)
Camara v. Mastro's Rests. LLC, 952 F.3d 372 (sworn denial can create genuine dispute when employer lacks dispositive proof)
Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861 F.3d 1338 (§4 summary procedures and evidentiary standards)
Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resol., LLC, 716 F.3d 764 (discovery limited but available on formation issues under FAA)
Tillman v. Macy's Inc., 735 F.3d 453 (continued employment can indicate assent when notice is shown)