[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-15909

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00278-LGW-GRS

WILLIAM A. ANDERSON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE, 

d.b.a. AIG Life and Retirement C/O,

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(May 11, 2017)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-15909 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 1 of 6 
2

William Anderson began working for AIG Life and Retirement in 2003. At 

that time he signed an employment agreement, which contained a provision stating 

that AIG’s dispute resolution program governed disputes involving employment 

related legal claims. AIG revised that employment agreement in 2008, and

Anderson and an AIG general manager signed the revised agreement. That revised

agreement incorporated documents, which Anderson acknowledged receiving, 

setting out AIG’s dispute resolution program. That dispute resolution program

included an agreement to arbitrate certain employment related claims. 

In 2014 Anderson sued AIG for discriminating and retaliating against him in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. AIG filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, or 

alternatively stay, the proceedings. The district court granted that motion and 

dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. Anderson now appeals. 

We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration 

and dismiss. Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007). Under 

the Federal Arbitration Act, “arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and 

enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation 

of the contract.” Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th 

Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). And under the Act a court must “either stay 

or dismiss a lawsuit and . . . compel arbitration upon a showing that (a) the plaintiff 

Case: 16-15909 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 2 of 6 
3

entered into a written arbitration agreement that is enforceable under ordinary 

state-law contract principles and (b) the claims before the court must fall within the 

scope of that agreement.” Lambert v. Austin Ind., 544 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 

2008) (quotation marks omitted). Anderson contends that the arbitration 

agreement is not enforceable under Georgia contract law — which governs the

agreement — because it lacks valid consideration. See id. (“Under Georgia law, a 

contract is enforceable if there is (a) a definite offer and (b) complete acceptance 

(c) for consideration.”).

Specifically, Anderson contends that the agreement to arbitrate lacks 

consideration because AIG’s promise to be bound to the dispute resolution plan 

was illusory. “To satisfy the consideration requirement under Georgia law, an 

accepting party to a contract can either tender bargained-for performance or make a 

mutual promise.” Id. While mutual promises, such as a mutual promise to

arbitrate, is sufficient consideration, “where a party offers an illusory promise, a 

court will find inadequate consideration and deem the contract unenforceable.” Id.

at 1196. And “[a]n illusory promise exists when ‘words of promise . . . by their 

terms make performance entirely optional with the “promisor” whatever may 

happen, or whatever course of conduct in other respects he may pursue.’” Id.

(quoting Kemira, Inc. v. Williams Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc., 450 S.E.2d 

427, 431 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)) (alteration in original). 

Case: 16-15909 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 3 of 6 
4

The 2008 revised employment agreement states that, as consideration for 

agreeing to follow the dispute resolution program, “[b]oth the Company and the 

Sales Employee are agreeing to resolve all disputes covered by the Employment 

Dispute Resolution Program through the Employment Dispute Resolution Program 

and, therefore, to waive their right to a trial in a judicial forum before a jury . . . .” 

In other words the consideration came in the form of mutual promises to be bound 

by the dispute resolution program. 

While the briefing is unclear, Anderson appears to first argue that the 

agreement to arbitrate is illusory because AIG failed to honor its obligations under 

the open door provision of the dispute resolution program. That argument fails 

however, because to the extent AIG breached an agreement to follow its open door 

policy, breaching the contract does not render the arbitration agreement illusory 

under Georgia law. “It has long been the rule in Georgia that the test of mutuality 

is to be applied at the time the contract is to be enforced. If at that time the 

contract contains mutual obligations equally binding on both parties to the 

contract, then the contract is not unilateral and unenforceable.” Jones v. Quigley, 

315 S.E.2d 59, 60 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984) (citations omitted). AIG’s alleged failure to 

honor the open door policy did not render the agreement to arbitrate illusory.

Anderson alternatively contends that AIG’s promise to arbitrate is illusory 

because the dispute resolution program allows AIG to choose whether to arbitrate 

Case: 16-15909 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 4 of 6 
5

claims instead of requiring it to arbitrate. He bases that contention on the 

arbitration provision in the dispute resolution program, which states that “[i]f your 

dispute involves a legally protected right that was not resolved [by internal dispute 

resolution methods], then you or the AIG company may request . . . Arbitration.” 

Anderson focuses on the word “may” as indicating that AIG is not required under 

the agreement to arbitrate claims, which means that AIG’s mutual promise to be 

bound to arbitration is illusory.

Anderson failed, however, to contend that in the district court. While in the 

district court Anderson asserted other reasons why the agreement was illusory, he

did not raise this contention and, as a result, we will not consider it. See OPIS 

Mgmt. Res., LLC v. Sec’y, Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin., 713 F.3d 1291, 

1297 n.7 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment and declining to consider an argument not made in the district court 

because the party’s reliance on a certain regulation in the district court did not 

allow that party to make a different argument based on that same regulation on 

appeal).

1

Anderson alternatively contends that the district court erred by dismissing 

the action instead of staying the proceedings pending arbitration of his claims. 

 1 Anderson also contends that the agreement to arbitrate is unconscionable, indefinite, 

and ambiguous. He failed to raise those arguments in the district court, and as a result, he 

waived them. See OPIS Mgmt. Res., LLC, 713 F.3d at 1297 n.7. 

Case: 16-15909 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 5 of 6 
6

Specifically, he contends that the Federal Arbitration Act’s plain language requires

that a district court stay the proceedings pending arbitration, instead of dismissing 

the action, when a party requests a stay. Anderson failed, however, to preserve 

that argument in the district court. “It is well established in this circuit that, absent 

extraordinary circumstances, legal theories and arguments not raised squarely 

before the district court cannot be broached for the first time on appeal.” Bryant v. 

Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009). 

While Anderson, in his brief in opposition to AIG’s motion to compel 

arbitration, requested that the district court stay the proceedings if it found that his 

claims were subject to arbitration, he did not argue that the district court was 

required under the Federal Arbitration Act to stay the proceedings. As a result, he 

failed to preserve the issue he raises now: that under the Federal Arbitration Act 

the district court must stay the proceedings and cannot dismiss the action. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-15909 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 6 of 6