Opinion ID: 2822799
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e., the team owners.

Text: In effect, then, the commissioner is required to arbitrate claims against his employers. In Vincent, this Court found unconscionable a provision in an arbitration contract between a home builder and home purchasers that designated the president of a home builders association as the sole selector of the arbitrator because it found the president of the home 19 builders association was “an individual in a position of bias.” 12 194 S.W.3d at 859. Like the president of the home builders association in Vincent, the designated arbitrator, the commissioner, is an individual in a position of bias as the arbitrator. Additionally, due to the lack of any terms in the employment contract or in any document incorporated into the contract, the contract appoints the commissioner as not only the arbitrator but as the person who controls virtually every aspect of the arbitration from establishing the rules and procedures to making the final decision. Those provisions in the arbitration agreement are unconscionable. Id. B. Replacement for Arbitrator Provided for by Statute The unconscionability of the terms regarding the arbitrator does not invalidate the entire agreement to arbitrate. Vincent, 194 S.W.3d at 859-61. Instead, those unconscionable terms are replaced by the relevant provisions in the MUAA. Id. The MUAA provides for substitution of a new arbitrator when the designated arbitrator is disqualified. Section 435.360. This provision may be used to appoint a substitute arbitrator. VI. Arbitration Clause Encompasses Mr. Hewitt’s Underlying Claim Against All Defendants Lastly, Mr. Hewitt makes two claims involving the enforcement of the arbitration agreement to compel arbitration of his underlying MRHA claim. Specifically, he asserts he did not waive a judicial forum for his statutory claim under the MHRA and that the 12 In Vincent, the president of the home builders association was also the president of the company that was a party to the arbitration agreement. 194 S.W.3d at 859. The Court did not base its holding on this fact, however. Rather, the Court expressly found, “Even if the president of the Home Builder[s] Association of Greater St. Louis was not also the president of [the company that was a party to the arbitration agreement], this portion of the arbitration provision would be unconscionable.” Id. 20 arbitration agreement cannot be enforced by the three named defendants who did not sign the employment contract. A. Arbitration Clause Waives a Judicial Forum for Statutory Claims Mr. Hewitt asserts he did not waive a judicial forum for his claim that he was fired in violation of the MHRA because the arbitration agreement language does not include statutory claims. He is incorrect. Under Missouri law, “[i]f a contract is unambiguous, the intent of the parties is to be discerned from the contract alone based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used.” Whelan Sec. Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835, 846 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotations omitted). The agreement at issue here mandates arbitration of “any dispute which may arise” between Mr. Hewitt and the Rams. “Any dispute” plainly means any dispute, including Mr. Hewitt’s statutory claims under the MHRA. Mr. Hewitt’s efforts to characterize this language as too ambiguous to be inclusive of statutory claims are unavailing. 13 13 The primary case cited by Mr. Hewitt is a Massachusetts case that is distinguishable both on the facts and on the governing law. In Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center., Inc., the Massachusetts court stated that Massachusetts law requires that an agreement to arbitrate statutory claims must be “clear and unmistakable.” 910 N.E.2d 317, 325 (Mass. 2009), abrogated on other grounds, Joule, Inc. v. Simmons, 944 N.E.2d 143, 150 n.9 (Mass. 2011). The court found the term “arising out of or in connection with [the employment agreement] or its negotiations” to be ambiguous and, ultimately, determined that the employee’s sex discrimination claim was not covered by the arbitration clause. Id. at 327-28. The language at issue in the instant case is distinguishable and is unambiguous. It, therefore, is enforceable under Missouri law. The other cases Mr. Hewitt cites for this proposition concern waiver requirements under collective bargaining agreements – a separate strand of legal precedent and one not directly applicable here. 21 B. Non-signatory Defendants Can Enforce the Arbitration Agreement Against Mr. Hewitt Mr. Hewitt asserts that defendants ITB Football Company, L.L.C., the Rams Football Company, Inc., and the St. Louis Rams, L.L.C., cannot enforce the arbitration agreement against Mr. Hewitt because, of the four named defendants, only the St. Louis Rams Partnership was a signatory to the agreement. This Court previously has rejected enforcement of an arbitration agreement against a signatory by a non-signatory on grounds that “arbitration is ultimately a matter of agreement between the parties.” Netco, Inc. v. Dunn, 194 S.W.3d 353, 361-62 (Mo. banc 2006). But Netco observed, as have the federal courts, that “a non-signatory may, in some instances, compel a signatory to arbitrate under the theory that the plaintiff/signatory is estopped from refusing to arbitrate.” Id. at 361. Dominium Austin Partners, L.L.C. v. Emerson provides an example of a situation like the present one in which all parties are properly referred to arbitration. 248 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2001). In Emerson, the court stated that all parties may arbitrate where “appellants made allegations which treat all these parties [signatories and non-signatories] as though they were signatories to the agreements.” Id. at 728. Similarly, Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. Partnership, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration International, Inc., held that a signatory plaintiff could not avoid enforcement when the plaintiff treated signatory and non-signatory defendants as a “single unit.” 198 F.3d 88, 98 (2d Cir. 1999). See also Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 631 (2009); MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds by Escobal v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., 482 F. App’x 475 (11th Cir. 2012); CD Partners, LLC v. Grizzle, 424 F.3d 795, 798 (8th Cir. 2005). 22 The principles set out in these cases apply here. Mr. Hewitt’s petition makes no differentiation between the signatory and non-signatory defendants, referring to them collectively as “the Rams” or “Defendants” and alleging they fired him despite his contract due to age discrimination, stating, “Defendants, by their actions and failures to act, . . . discriminated against Mr. Hewitt on the basis of his age in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act” (emphasis added). In other words, he alleges that each is responsible for the single act of firing him due to age while he was under contract. If the other defendants (two of whom are partners in the Rams partnership) were not bound by the contract, including the agreement to arbitrate, then Mr. Hewitt has failed to state any basis on which these nonsignatory defendants employed him or could be liable for his firing. Mr. Hewitt cannot treat these defendants severally for arbitration purposes but jointly for all other purposes. His claim against the defendants is a single one that should be referred in its entirety to arbitration.