Court Opinion

ID: 9843227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:31:05.076817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:02.865728
License: Public Domain

HARLINGTON WOOD, JR., Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I completely agree with the careful and thoughtful analysis of the foregoing opinion and the result reached, and only write separately to note a few practical considerations to put this in perspective. It was an unfair situation from its inception.
Penn was being hired as a waiter in a chain restaurant, not as a corporate executive. His employment was only to be “at will.” Likely a substantial share of his income would be from tips. The agreement, the rules, the relationships between the parties, and the ramifications of the arbitration arrangement have now reached this court to sort out. Above his signature this agreement states that Penn signed it “knowingly and voluntarily.” We doubt it could have been “knowingly” in view of its complexities, or even “voluntarily.” Had he questioned its meaning and its complexities, it is doubtful Penn would have been hired. However, the agreement provided that Penn had the right to consult an attorney, but even if Penn could have afforded an attorney, the appearance of any attorney on the scene would doubtless have foreclosed any job opportunity. In Ryan’s eyes, Penn would look like a troublemaker. If he wanted the waiter’s job, he would be trapped in an unfair situation until a court could unravel it.