E-mailed arbitration policy found wanting.

Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp., 1st Cir., No. 04-1828, May 23, 2005.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to require a terminated employee to arbitrate his disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, ruling that the

The requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act require that agreements to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims be set forth in a "written provision" of an enforceable contract.

General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. had sent an e-mail to all employees on April 30, 2001, to notify them that a new dispute resolution policy would take effect the next day. The policy, which was to be mandatory for all employees who continued their employment, was to be the exclusive means of resolving all workplace disputes. It contained four steps, the last of which was to be "arbitration by a qualified and independent arbitrator."

The e-mail consisted of a letter from the company president and two electronic links. The first link was to a two-page brochure, which described the details of the policy. The second was to a dispute resolution handbook, which contained the full text of the policy, a flowchart to show the progression of steps and forms for filing claims at each of the four levels.

Roderick Campbell had worked for General Dynamics for more than two years when the company terminated his employment in December 2002 for persistent absenteeism and tardiness. He sued in Massachusetts state court, arguing that his attendance problems were the result of his sleep apnea. The court refused to require Campbell to arbitrate his claims, stating that a mass e-mail message was an insufficient form of notice about a policy that was to be contractually enforceable.

The 1st Circuit disagreed with the lower court on the use of e-mail for notification, saying that there was nothing wrong with using e-mail to communicate an arbitration policy. However, the court found that the content of the e-mail lacked several important components of a proper notice, so it refused to enforce General Dynamics' arbitration policy against Campbell.

For example, General Dynamics did not require employees to respond with their agreement to the policy. While the company did electronically monitor which employees opened the e-mail, it made no affirmative effort to determine which employees read the e-mail or opened or read its two attachments.