Whitworth v. McBRIDE & SON HOMES, INC., 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 447

Whitworth, a former McBride & Son employee, was presented with a Sales Manager Employment Contract containing a general arbitration clause.
Whitworth signed the Employment Contract without the Handbook’s dispute procedures, which were later introduced via Handbook and separate documents.
Whitworth later signed an Application and an Arbitration Agreement that referenced the Handbook’s procedures, which were not signed by McBride & Son.
McBride & Son’s Handbook stated it was informational and not a contract, and that only the President could bind the company to employment terms unless in writing.
Whitworth signed a February 2006 “Statement” acknowledging receipt of the Handbook and its non-contractual nature, further indicating unilateral modification rights by the Company.
The trial court denied McBride & Son’s motion to compel arbitration; Whitworth filed an amended petition alleging gender and age discrimination, and the Defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid arbitration contract exists between Whitworth and McBride & Son	Whitworth argues no binding agreement existed	McBride & Son contends an arbitration contract exists via the Employment Contract, Application, Arbitration Agreement, and Handbook	No valid arbitration contract existed

State ex rel. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. banc 2006) (establishes contract elements and that arbitration requires a valid agreement)
Morrow v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 15 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (continued at-will employment as consideration; preexisting duty rule)
Johnson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 745 S.W.2d 661 (Mo.banc 1988) (handbook not a contractual offer; unilateral information only)
Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac, 321 S.W.3d 429 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (illusionsary consideration when contract can be modified unilaterally)
Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 339 (Mo. banc 2006) (three-factor framework for arbitrability review)