Eastern District of Missouri Enforces Web and E-mail Arbitration Agreement | Practical Law

Eastern District of Missouri Enforces Web and E-mail Arbitration Agreement | Practical Law

In Karzon v. AT&T, Inc., the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that an arbitration agreement located on a web page and sent by e-mail was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act in an employment discrimination action.

Eastern District of Missouri Enforces Web and E-mail Arbitration Agreement

Practical Law Legal Update 6-554-2805 (Approx. 4 pages)

Eastern District of Missouri Enforces Web and E-mail Arbitration Agreement

by Practical Law Litigation
Published on 14 Jan 2014USA (National/Federal)
In Karzon v. AT&T, Inc., the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that an arbitration agreement located on a web page and sent by e-mail was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act in an employment discrimination action.
On January 7, 2014, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in Karzon v. AT&T, Inc. held that an arbitration agreement located on a web page and sent by e-mail was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in an employment discrimination action (No. 13-2202, (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2014)).
Plaintiff Karzon was employed by defendant Southwestern Bell Telephone Company until his termination in October 2012. Karzon brought suit under the Missouri Human Rights Act alleging that his supervisor subjected him to a hostile work environment and unequal discipline, and terminated his employment based on his status as a Muslim Arab born in Jordan.
In late 2011, AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) notified employees by e-mail that it had implemented an arbitration program to resolve any claims between AT&T companies and their employees. The e-mail included a link to a web page with the text of the arbitration agreement. The e-mail also contained the following phrases in boldface type: "Review Required" and "Action Required: Notice Regarding Arbitration Agreement." The e-mail concluded with a deadline for anyone who did not want to participate in the arbitration program to opt out. The web page reiterated the opt out notice and provided a link to a website where employees could register their decision to opt out. Employees were then asked to review the agreement and click a "Review Completed" button regardless of whether they chose to participate or opt out.
Karzon received the e-mail in December 2011 and AT&T's records establish that he accessed the e-mail and web page that day. Karzon clicked the "Review Completed" button but did not opt out. After AT&T moved to compel arbitration, Karzon challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted AT&T's motion to compel arbitration. The court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and concluded that Karzon had affirmatively accepted the arbitration agreement by failing to opt out. The court also found that:
  • An e-mail agreement to arbitrate satisfies the FAA's requirement for a written agreement.
  • While the FAA requires arbitration agreements to be written, it does not require them to be signed.
  • Because the FAA controlled the action, Missouri's law was preempted and the agreement did not have to include language otherwise required under Missouri's Arbitration Act to be enforceable.
  • The agreement was valid under Missouri contract law.
Practitioners should be aware that an arbitration agreement located on a web page and sent by e-mail that provides adequate opt-out notice may be enforceable under the FAA.