Opinion ID: 2632735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Unilateral Application

Text: Relying on Ingle, 328 F.3d at 1174, Adler argues that the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable because it applies only to disputes brought by employees, not to disputes brought by Fred Lind Manor against its employees. Fred Lind Manor, however, claims that the agreement is bilateral since it also requires Fred Lind Manor to arbitrate any of its disputes brought against its employees. To interpret the meaning of a contract's terms, Washington courts employ the context rule. Berg v. Hudesman, 115 Wash.2d 657, 667, 801 P.2d 222 (1990). The context rule requires that we determine the intent of the parties by viewing the contract as a whole, which includes the subject matter and intent of the contract, examination of the circumstances surrounding its formation, subsequent acts and conduct of the parties, the reasonableness of the respective interpretations advanced by the parties, and statements made by the parties during preliminary negotiations, trade usage, and/or course of dealing. 25 DAVID K. DEWOLF & KELLER W. ALLEN, WASHINGTON PRACTICE, Contract Law and Practice § 5.5 (1998). The text of the agreement here, as well as the parties' statements and conduct, support Fred Lind Manor's claim that the agreement also requires it to arbitrate its disputes against employees. First, at the time the arbitration agreements were executed, then-manager Serold informed employees that the arbitration agreement reflected management's policy that all employment disputes, whether by employer or an employee, be subject to binding arbitration instead of a lawsuit in court. CP at 39-40. Serold also indisputably acted in her role as Fred Lind Manor's representative when she signed Adler's and other employees' agreements on Fred Lind Manor's behalf. [10] Id. Most importantly, the agreement provides, [t]he aggrieved party must deliver to the other party a written notice of his/her/its intention to seek arbitration.... Otherwise his/her/its rights shall be irrevocably waived. CP at 22 (emphasis added). This provision does not single out individual employees' disputes against Fred Lind Manor. Rather, it refers generically to the aggrieved party, and, by use of the words his/her/its, clearly contemplates suits brought by Fred Lind Manor against its employees. CP at 22. Thus, we reject Adler's argument that this arbitration agreement applies unilaterally.