Seawright v. American General Financial Services, Inc.
507 F.3d 967 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's continued employment after receiving clear and repeated notice of a mandatory arbitration program, where the program's terms state that continued employment constitutes acceptance, forms a valid and enforceable contract to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Facts:
- Lisa Seawright began working for American General Financial Services (AGF) in November 1978 and eventually became a branch manager.
- In April 1999, AGF began notifying employees, including Seawright, that it was implementing a mandatory Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Program effective June 1, 1999.
- AGF distributed informational materials, including brochures, which stated: 'Seeking, accepting, or continuing employment with AGF means that you agree to resolve employment related claims against the company or another employee through this process instead of through the court system.'
- Seawright attended an informational session about the EDR Program and signed an attendance sheet acknowledging that she had received a copy of the program's pamphlet.
- The EDR Program went into effect on June 1, 1999, and Seawright continued her employment with AGF.
- In June 2001, AGF sent another letter and brochure to employees, reminding them of the EDR Program and reiterating that continuing employment constituted agreement to its terms.
- AGF terminated Seawright's employment on April 26, 2005.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Seawright filed suit against American General Financial Services (AGF) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging wrongful termination.
- AGF filed a motion to compel arbitration, citing its Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Program.
- The district court (a trial court) denied AGF's motion to compel arbitration, ruling that no valid and enforceable agreement existed.
- AGF, as the appellant, appealed the district court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's continued employment after receiving notice of a mandatory arbitration program, which explicitly states that continued employment constitutes acceptance, create a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act, even if the employee does not sign the agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Boggs, C.J.
Yes. An employee's knowing continuation of employment after the effective date of a clearly communicated arbitration program constitutes acceptance, creating a valid and enforceable contract to arbitrate. Under Tennessee law, unilateral contracts can be accepted by performance, and AGF's EDR Program materials explicitly defined continued employment as the action constituting acceptance. The agreement was supported by consideration in the form of mutual promises to arbitrate. It was not illusory because AGF was bound to its terms for at least 90 days after giving notice of termination. Furthermore, the agreement was not an unconscionable contract of adhesion because Seawright failed to show she lacked a meaningful choice in employment. Finally, the Federal Arbitration Act's requirement of a 'written provision' was met by the distributed pamphlets and brochures; a signature is not required.
Dissenting - Martin, J.
No. Continued employment without a signature or other affirmative act does not constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial, and therefore does not create an enforceable arbitration agreement. Seawright never signed any document manifesting assent to the contract; her signature was only on an attendance sheet acknowledging receipt of a pamphlet, not review or understanding of its terms. Placing the burden on an employee to object or quit their job to avoid being bound by a unilateral policy is contrary to fundamental contract principles where silence does not constitute acceptance. Without a clear, affirmative signal that Seawright knowingly and voluntarily entered into the agreement, it is unreasonable to hold her to its terms and strip her of her right to access the courts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the validity of 'continue-to-work' acceptance clauses for mandatory arbitration agreements within the Sixth Circuit. It establishes a significant precedent that an employee's conduct (continuing employment) can form a binding contract to arbitrate, even without a signature, provided the employer gives clear notice of the policy and its terms. This ruling lowers the evidentiary bar for employers seeking to enforce such agreements and shifts the onus onto employees to either affirmatively object or resign if they do not wish to waive their right to a judicial forum. The case will likely influence how employers implement arbitration policies and how courts in other jurisdictions analyze contract formation in the at-will employment context.
Unlock the full brief for Seawright v. American General Financial Services, Inc.