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.

More important, nothing in the text of the e-mail itself advised employees that the policy required employees to give up their rights to file legal claims against the company in a court. The e-mail also failed to advise employees that General Dynamics intended the policy to be contractually binding on all employees simply by virtue of their continued employment.

The court found it significant that for other employment agreements of a contractual nature at General Dynamics, the employee signified agreement via a signature on a document kept in the employee's personnel file.

BY JAMES B. THELEN, AN ATTORNEY WITH THE FIRM OF MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE PLC IN LANSING, MICH.

EDITOR'S NOTE: THESE ARTICLES SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.

Online Resources

New cases are posted online each week. Visit the online version of Court Report at www.shrm.org/hrnews.

RELATED ARTICLE: Professional Pointer

Arbitration agreements must generally satisfy both federal standards and any state law requirements for forming valid contracts between a company and its employees. Be sure to consider your state's legal requirements for enforcing an employment contract in conjunction with the federal standards to make sure your employment contracts meet all requirements.