A federal court in Oklahoma recently enforced an arbitration agreement entered into electronically through a hiring kiosk at JC Penney. Gonzales v. JC Penney Corp, No. 13–CV–86–GKF–TLW (N.D. Okl. Apr. 29, 2013). An employee sued JC Penney in state court for wrongful discharge, and JC Penney removed the case to federal court and successfully sought enforcement of the arbitration agreement.
As demonstrated in my book, the Federal Arbitration Act was never intended to apply to arbitration agreements in the employment context, and the employee should have her right to a day in court.
The employee argued the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because JC Penney retained the “unfettered right” to amend the arbitration agreement. Other courts have accepted such arguments. However, this federal court rejected the employee’s arguments because the arbitration agreement placed three reasonable restrictions on JC Penney’s right to amend: a) an amendment may only be made to clarify a rule or correct a typographical error; b) amendments would only apply to cases commenced 90 days after the amendment; and c) if a rule is deemed unenforceable by a court or arbitrator, it will be considered stricken for that particular case.