Skip to main content

Employer That Was Not Named In Arbitration Agreement Could Not Enforce It Against Employee


Goplin v. WeConnect, Inc. - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Brooks Goplin ("Goplin") worked for WeConnect, Inc.  At the start of his employment, he signed an arbitration agreement called the "AEI Alternative Entertainment Inc. Open Door Policy and Arbitration Program".  The arbitration agreement referred to AEI throughout but never mentioned WeConnect.

Goplin proceeded to file a Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under Wisconsin law, however WeConnect filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Included in its motion, WeConnect included an affidavit from its Director of Human Resources that stated, among other things, "I am employed by WeConnect, Inc. - formerly known as Alternative Entertainment, Inc. or AEI - as Director of Human Resources."  Goplin countered and argued that since WeConnect was not a party to the agreement, the arbitration provision could not be enforced.  Goplin pointed the district court to WeConnect's website which identified WeConnect and Alternative Entertainment Inc. as two privately held companies that combined in 2016.  As a result, Goplin argued the arbitration agreement was with the now-defunct Alternative Entertainment, Inc. and therefore WeConnect could not enforce an agreement that had been entered into with another company.  WeConnect countered that the 2016 "event" was only a name change and not a merger.  Therefore, the arbitration agreement could still be enforced against Goplin.

The district court disagreed with WeConnect's reasoning and held that WeConnect failed to establish it was a party to the arbitration agreement or that it could enforce the agreement itself.  WeConnect proceeded to file a motion for reconsideration and attached additional evidence, including some corporate form documents and affidavits from its lawyers and CEO, to support its argument that Alternative Entertainment, Inc. had undergone a name change rather than a merger.  The district court found that this new evidence was not admissible and therefore denied the motion.  WeConnect subsequently appealed.

Holding:  Wisconsin has long held that "[t]he general rule is that only a party to a contract may enforce it."  Using this reasoning, the Court of Appeals turned to the evidence and noted that it would only consider what had been properly admitted into the record when the district court ruled.

In this instance, WeConnect argued that the district court should not have taken the website information into account when ruling on the motion to dismiss.  While WeConnect suggested that without this website information, the district court's factual finding lacked any basis, the Court disagreed.  The website was not found to be the determinative factor in the district court's decision.  As the party that sought to enforce the arbitration agreement, WeConnect was required to show its right to do so.  However, the only evidence properly admitted into the record about WeConnect's relationship to Alternative Entertainment, Inc. was one sentence in the affidavit from its Director of Human Resources.  Had WeConnect introduced its strongest evidence at the get-go (the corporate form documents and additional affidavits), the Court held that the district court may have been convinced that the two names referred to the same entity.  However, based upon the evidence before the district court, the Court of Appeals found that the ruling to deny the motion to dismiss and compel arbitration was not clearly erroneous.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals upheld the district court's denial of the employer's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration on the grounds that since the employee signed an arbitration agreement that did not include the employer's name anywhere in the document, the employer did not have grounds to enforce the arbitration agreement.

The Takeaway:  Employers, let this case be a lesson for you.  As the Court of Appeals noted, had the employer introduced its strongest evidence at the get-go to establish there was a name change rather than a merger, it is possible the district court would have ruled in favor of the motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  However, for somewhat inexplicable reasons, WeConnect held back some of its strongest documentation until the motion for reconsideration.  As this was not newly discovered or unknown evidence (which could have allowed it to be admitted into evidence), WeConnect found itself in the untenable position of having potentially significant evidence which would have supported its claim...but no procedural avenue to actually have it admitted into the record.  Without this crucial evidence before the district court originally, I think the district court got it right and held that WeConnect could not enforce the arbitration agreement as it was not a party to the agreement itself. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Barrett

Date:  June 21, 2018

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/GoplinWeConnect062118.pdf
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more