Opinion ID: 1817898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Liberal Policy of Interpretation

Text: As their caselaw demonstrates, both the Second and Fourth Circuits employ a liberal interpretation in determining the enforceability of arbitration provisions. In Stadtlander v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, 34,384 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/4/01), 794 So.2d 881, writ denied, 01-1327 (La.6/22/01), 794 So.2d 790, the Second Circuit upheld the enforceability of an arbitration agreement [9] found in a standard form employment-related contract, finding the agreement was not adhesionary. The Stadtlander defendant filed an exception of no cause of action based on a binding arbitration agreement, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's employment action, in which plaintiff alleged she was forced to work without compensation. In response, plaintiff argued the agreement was adhesionary, and the district court denied defendant's exception. The Second Circuit reversed, finding the agreement was not adhesionary because (1) the plaintiff made no showing that she did not understand the agreement or that she would have refused to work for defendant had she been aware of the import of its terms and (2) there was no evidence of an unequal bargaining position as the plaintiff, who could have found a similar position elsewhere, could have avoided the arbitration agreement had she objected to it by simply choosing to work elsewhere. See Stadtlander, 794 So.2d at 889-90. Similarly, the Fourth Circuit has upheld arbitration agreements despite allegations that they were adhesionary. In Simpson v. Pep Boys-Manny Moe & Jack, Inc., 03-0358 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/10/03), 847 So.2d 617, an employer sought to stay an action for compensatory damages against the employer and plaintiff's co-employees due to the presence of a binding arbitration agreement in the standard form employment-related contract. [10] In response, plaintiff sought to declare the agreement adhesionary, and the district court denied defendant's motion to stay. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit concluded the arbitration agreement was not adhesionary because (1) the arbitration agreement was in standard type; (2) the plaintiff had the option of not signing the agreement and finding work elsewhere if he did not wish to be bound to arbitration; and (3) both the employer and employee agreed to severe limits on the right to litigate the majority of claims they may have had against each other. See Simpson, 03-0358, p. 6-7, 847 So.2d at 622-23. Additionally, in Dufrene v. HBOS Manufacturing, LP, 03-2201 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/7/04), 872 So.2d 1206, ruling on rehearing, 03-2201 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/28/04), 872 So.2d at 1212 the defendant sought to stay a redhibition action brought by buyers of a mobile home against their retailer in light of an arbitration agreement addendum [11] to the bill of sale. In response, plaintiffs sought to have the agreement declared adhesionary, and the district court denied defendant's motion to stay. The Fourth Circuit on rehearing in a per curiam again reversed the district court's ruling, finding the agreement was not adhesionary because (1) the language of the arbitration agreement was clear; (2) the print was not unreasonably small; and (3) the provisions of the arbitration were not unreasonably burdensome. The court further found no showing that the plaintiffs were placed in an unequal bargaining position, that they did not understand the agreement, or that they would have refused to purchase the mobile home had they been aware of the import of its terms. See Dufrene, 03-2201, p. 3; 872 So.2d at 1213.