LawMemo       First in Employment Law 

LawMemo's reason for being: We publish Employment Law Memo - summaries of latest court decisions, one-click links to full text, three emails per week.   Try it. 

Home | Free Trial | Products & Prices | Feeds | Caselaw Database | Sample   
EEOC
| NLRB | Nat'l Arbitration Ctr | Supreme Court | Articles | Lawyers
Employment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101    
Employment Law Memo | NLRB Law Memo | Arbitration Law Memo

Quick Jump: 

LawMemo Arbitration Blog 

All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic

 

« 6th Circuit award review standards under fire | Main | Arbitrator's non-disclosure was OK »

Non-signers not bound to arbitrate
February 05, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

Two recent cases, same results, different reasons, both saying that a person who did not sign an arbitration agreement is not bound to arbitrate.

Perhaps the outcomes are obvious to you. They were not obvious to me.

Peters v. Columbus Steel (Ohio Ct App 01/31/2006): An employee leasing company hired William Peters to work at Columbus Steel. William signed an arbitration agreement. After William died from on-the-job injuries, Alice Peters (his widow and administrator of his estate) sued Columbus claiming wrongful death.

The court held that Alice was not required to arbitrate her claim. The court's focus was on the nature of Alice's claim. Her claim is not one that is on behalf of William's estate. Her claim is an independent claim on behalf of William's next of kin. Therefore, the fact that William agreed to arbitrate his claims does not mean that Alice is required to arbitrate her claims.

Comer v. Micor, Inc (9th Cir 02/01/2006): Comer was a participant in two ERISA plans operated by Micor. The plan trustees retained Smith Barney to provide investment advice, and the agreement between the trustees and Smith Barney contained an arbitration clause.

Comer sued Smith Barney under ERISA claiming breach of fiduciary duty. Although such a suit is brought by an individual plan beneficiary, the suit is for the benefit of the plan and any recovery is on behalf of the plan as a whole.

It's important to understand that the 9th Circuit made it clear that Comer was not suing in a derivative capacity. Although any recovery from his suit will go to the plan, Comer has his own cause of action. (Similar to the Peters case discussed above.)

Once we make it clear that Comer had his own cause of action, it's equally clear that he is not bound by the arbitration agreement signed by the trustees. The 9th Circuit used what it considers to be ordinary contract principles to decide that Smith Barney cannot impose the arbitration clause on Comer.

A word of caution: These two cases are not based merely on the fact that the plaintiffs did not sign an arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreements can be enforceable without an actual signature, provided it can be shown that an individual agreed to arbitrate. These two cases are both based on the principle that the plaintiffs' claims were not derived from the claims owned by the party that did agree to arbitrate. The plaintiffs each had their own claims.

LawMemo.Com

Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.

Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.

  • Employment Law Memo emails designed for lawyers. 
  • Expert summaries of decisions from all federal and state appellate courts. 
  • Direct link to full text. 
  • Click here for free 4-week subscription