Title: Baptist Health System, Inc. v. MacK

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

860 So. 2d 1265 (2003)
BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.
v.
Lisa MACK.
1011279.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 18, 2003.
*1266 William G. Somerville III and Lynlee Wells Palmer of Johnston Barton Proctor & Powell, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant.
Cecil G. Duffee III of Duffee & Associates, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
HARWOOD, Justice.
On October 19, 2001, Lisa Mack, a licensed practical nurse, sued her employer, Baptist Health System, Inc. ("BHS"), which operates a number of health-care facilities including the Shelby Ridge Nursing Home ("Shelby Ridge") where Mack was employed. Mack also sued the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") and other fictitiously named defendants. As finally amended, Mack's complaint presented claims against BHS alleging refusal to pay workers' compensation benefits, retaliatory discharge, and wrongful termination. Mack's complaint also served as a notice of appeal of DIR's decision to deny her request to receive unemployment-compensation benefits.
After various filings by DIR and Mack, the trial court ordered that Mack's retaliatory-discharge and wrongful-termination claims against BHS be decided before her unemployment-compensation *1267 claim against DIR was adjudicated.[1] Thereafter, BHS moved the court to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration of Mack's retaliatory-discharge and wrongfultermination claims. BHS relied on an arbitration provision contained in a document entitled "Dispute Resolution Program" ("the Program") BHS provided to its employees. Mack opposed the motion and filed a response, and BHS submitted a reply. After BHS subsequently supplemented its reply to Mack's opposition to arbitration, the trial court entered an order denying BHS's motion to stay and to compel arbitration. BHS filed a motion to sever Mack's workers' compensation claim from her retaliatory-discharge and wrongful-termination claims; that motion was granted. Next, BHS appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration to this Court, arguing that it is entitled to compel arbitration under the Program.
Potts v. Baptist Health System, Inc., 853 So. 2d 194, 196-97 (Ala.2002).
The record shows that in November 1997 BHS implemented the Program effective January 1, 1998, requiring that all disputes arising between BHS and its employees be submitted to alternative dispute resolution. Details of the Program were not contained in any employee handbook but rather were set out in a separate document ("the Program document"). Mack stated in her affidavit that she received a copy of the Program document "after she began to work at BHS." The Program document provides, in pertinent part:
(First emphasis supplied; second emphasis original.) On November 20, 1997, Mack signed a document entitled "Acknowledgment of Receipt of BHS Dispute Resolution Program," which stated, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis original.) As attested to by Cindy Nicholson, the director of human resources at Shelby Medical Center,[2] who is "familiar with the day-to-day operations of Shelby Medical Center and [Shelby Ridge]," meetings were held with the employees to explain the terms of the Program and to ensure that BHS employees *1269 were aware of the Program and the arbitration provision contained in the Program document. Nicholson stated that notices regarding the Program were included in every BHS employees' paycheck. Mack continued her employment with BHS after her receipt and acknowledgment of the terms of the Program document.
Mack asserts in her complaint that, on November 4, 1998, while continuing in her employment with BHS as a nurse and while acting in the course and scope of that employment, she suffered an "on-thejob injury." As a result of her injury, Mack was partially disabled for a period of time and underwent medical treatment. Mack alleges in her complaint that BHS "failed and/or refused" to pay her workers' compensation benefits. Thereafter, on June 19, 2001, while still continuing to work at Shelby Ridge, Mack allowed two nursing assistants to leave the facility for personal purposes during working hours.[3] They remained absent for approximately an hour, which was in excess of the 30minute break permitted by Shelby Ridge.[4] Mack did not to report the employees' extended absences to her superiors. On June 25, 2001, BHS terminated Mack's employment at Shelby Ridge because it determined that Mack's action of not reporting the nursing assistants' prolonged absences left the facility "dangerously understaffed." Mack argues that the termination was in retaliation for her workers' compensation claim against BHS. The record shows that Mack was eventually rehired by BHS; in BHS's brief filed with this Court on May 23, 2002, BHS states that Mack was employed at Shelby Baptist Medical Center.
The trial court's thoughtful nine-page order denying BHS's motion to stay and to compel arbitration expressed its rationale as follows:
Critical to the curtailed scope of the review we undertake is this final paragraph quoted above:
BHS contends that the Program document constitutes a written agreement to arbitrate sufficient to compel arbitration. In support of its contention, BHS relies on Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725 (Ala.1987), for the proposition that a valid contract to arbitrate any disputes between it and Mack arose when Mack, having received a copy of the Program document and signed a form acknowledging receipt of and her obligation to read the Program document, continued her employment with BHS. This continued employment, according to BHS, constituted her knowing acceptance of the unilateral offer contained in the Program document of continued employment in consideration of her agreement to be bound by the arbitration provisions in the document.
In Hoffman-La Roche, a former employee sued his employer alleging wrongful discharge. The plaintiff argued that an employee handbook issued by his employer created a unilateral contract that modified the initial at-will employment contract. The plaintiff further argued that, as a result of that modification, the employer could terminate the plaintiff's employment only as prescribed by the terms of the handbook. Under the circumstances in Hoffman-La Roche, this Court held that the employee handbook did create a unilateral contract modifying the at-will employment agreement. After an extensive analysis of various legal authorities discussing the principles of contracts in the context of employment agreements, this Court stated:
512 So. 2d  at 733-34 (footnote omitted). The Hoffman-La Roche Court also established the analysis to determine whether the language contained in an employee handbook is sufficient to constitute an offer to create a binding contract. Specifically, this Court stated:
512 So. 2d  at 735.
Accordingly, we consider whether the trial court correctly determined that the acknowledgment was not sufficient to bind Mack to arbitrate her retaliatory-discharge and wrongful-termination claims.
Under Alabama law,
Ex parte Cain, 838 So. 2d 1020, 1026-27 (Ala.2002). See also Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Kilgore, 751 So. 2d 8, 11 (Ala.1999) ("This Court has held that the object of a signature on a contract is to show mutuality and assent, and that mutuality and assent can be manifested in ways other than a signature."). In the instant case, the language contained in the Program document provides that an employee's continued employment at BHS "will mean" that he or she agrees to and is bound by the terms of the Program document, and that the document constitutes a *1274 binding contract between the employee and BHS if the employee continues to be employed or accepts employment at BHS. The record also shows that Mack continued her employment with BHS upon her receipt of the Program document and for an extended period thereafter.
Mack argues that because the acknowledgment form she signed did not contain an arbitration provision she is not bound to arbitrate her claims against BHS, pursuant to this Court's decision in Ex parte Beasley, 712 So. 2d 338 (Ala. 1998). As aptly noted in the trial court's order, the facts in Beasley are in many respects comparable to the facts in this case; however, they can be distinguished on a pivotal point. In Beasley, as in the present case, the employee, Beasley, was already employed by her employer when the employer adopted a new employment policy. That policy required all employees "as a condition of employment, to agree to submit employment claims" against the employer to binding arbitration. 712 So. 2d  at 339. Each employee was issued an employee handbook that included the arbitration provisions; the employer required each employee to acknowledge receipt of the handbook by signing an acknowledgment form. Beasley's "continued employment" was conditioned on her acknowledging the receipt of the new standard employment handbook. The "acknowledgment form in the standard employee handbook" contained the statement, to be affirmed by the signature of the particular employee, that "I also understand that as a condition of employment and continued employment I agree to submit any complaints to [arbitration] and agree to abide by and accept the final decision of the arbitration panel...." 712 So. 2d  at 340. Although Beasley did not sign that acknowledgment form, she did sign an acknowledgment form that contained language also present in the "acknowledgment form in the standard employee handbook," acknowledging by her signature that "no written statement or agreement in this handbook concerning employment is binding." 712 So. 2d  at 340 (emphasis omitted). The Beasley Court concluded that this statement "vitiate[d] the operative effect of the arbitration provision contained in the standard employee handbook." 712 So. 2d  at 340. The Court expressed the opinion, however, that "[t]he acknowledgment form contained in [the employer's] standard employee handbook would have created a binding obligation to arbitrate ... if Beasley had signed that form; however, she did not sign that form. Instead ... Beasley signed an acknowledgment form that is similar to the standard form, but that does not contain the arbitration clause." 712 So. 2d  at 341. In that regard, the language of the acknowledgment form in Beasley is comparable to the language in the Program document in the present case, pursuant to which the employee continuing in employment agrees to be bound by the terms of the Program. Thus, we conclude that Mack, by continuing her employment with BHS subsequent to her receipt of the Program document, expressly assented to the terms of the Program document and is therefore bound by the arbitration provision contained in that document.
Thus, we conclude that, contrary to the finding of the trial judge, a written agreement to arbitrate did exist, and we must reverse his order denying BHS's motion to stay and to compel arbitration premised solely on the ground that a written agreement to arbitrate did not exist. Given that the trial judge expressly limited his holding to the finding that no written agreement to arbitrate existed and expressly declared that he did "not find it necessary to address the issues regarding whether or *1275 not the agreement substantially affects interstate commerce, since without a written agreement these issues [are] not reached," we do not ourselves address those issues. As Mack reminds us in her brief, urging that we go no further than addressing the exclusive holding of the trial court, "[a]ppellate courts generally will not review questions not decided by the trial court."
Accordingly, having considered the one issue decided by the trial court, we reverse the trial court's order premised exclusively on its holding that no written agreement to arbitrate existed and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.
MOORE, C.J., and JOHNSTONE, J., dissent.
JOHNSTONE, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Lisa Mack did not sign any agreement to arbitrate and she did not accept any promise or offer.
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725 (Ala.1987), does not support the claim of BHS that the parties contracted to arbitrate. Unlike the employee handbook in Hoffman-La Roche, the BHS "Program" did not promise or offer Mack any safeguard for her employment but expressly negated any such promise or offer. Indeed, the Program did not promise or offer Mack any benefit at all. Therefore, unlike the employee in Hoffman-La Roche, Mack did not accept any promise or offer and thereby form any contract.
This case is indistinguishable from Ex parte Beasley, 712 So. 2d 338 (Ala.1998), which held that the employee's signing an acknowledgment form acknowledging receipt of an employee handbook but not containing an arbitration agreement did not bind the employee to the arbitration provisions in the handbook itself. Not even the dictum in Ex parte Beasley supports the claim of BHS. The Beasley dictum says that, if the employee had signed an acknowledgment form which expressly stated that the employee agreed to arbitrate, she would have been bound to arbitrate. The acknowledgment form signed by Mack contains no such agreement. The only undertaking by Mack in the acknowledgment form is that she "understands she is] obligated to read this document ... [and] that it is [her] responsibility to consult [her] Human Resources director if [she has] any questions." (Emphasis added.)
[1]  DIR is not a party to this appeal.
[2]  Nicholson stated that Shelby Medical Center is "part" of BHS.
[3]  The record does not show what events took place between Mack's November 1998 injury and this incident.
[4]  Mack testified before DIR that the two employees she allowed to leave Shelby Ridge for personal purposes were entitled to a 30-minute break. Thus, we infer that a 30-minute break is consistent with the policies of Shelby Ridge and/or BHS.