Mantor v Circuit city inc
Brief # 1-Circuit City Stores, Inc(Defendant) V. Mantor(Plantiff)
Procedural History
A year after Circuit City, Inc terminated Mantor’s employment he brought a civil action in state court alleging twelve causes of action.
Circuit City petitioned the district court to compel arbirtration, and the distict court granted circuit citys motion to compel arbitration.
Mantor appealed, argueing that the arbitration process was unforecable because it was unconsiable
Issue
Was the arbitration contract that Circuit City provided to Mantor enforceable under the contract of unconsionability.
Facts
In 1995, Circuit City instituted and arbitration program called the “Assosciate issue resolution program
In 1998, Paul Mantor met with managers to discuss the options of either joining Circuit City’s AIRP arbitration program or be terminated from the company.
Mantor was able to avoid either signing up or openly refusing to participate in the AIRP for three years.
In October 2000, Circuit City terminated Mantors employment
Rule of Law
In determining this question of whether Circuit City’s arbitration agreement with Mantor is procedurally unconscionable we must evaluate how the parties negotiated the contracts and the circumstances of the parties at the time.
The court will look at whether a contract is procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
Reasoning and Analysis
Because Circuit City presented the arbitration agreement to Mantor on an “adhere-or-reject” basis its is concluded that the arbitration process was procedurally unconscionable.
The unconscionable provisions concerning the statue of limitations, cost splitting, class actions, and Circuit City’s unilateral power to modify or terminate the arbitration agreement provide enough reason to hold these terms as substantively unconscionable.
It is concluded that it is improperly one-sided to make an employee pay a seventy five dollar filing fee to initiate an arbitration proceeding.
Holding
Because
Procedural History
A year after Circuit City, Inc terminated Mantor’s employment he brought a civil action in state court alleging twelve causes of action.
Circuit City petitioned the district court to compel arbirtration, and the distict court granted circuit citys motion to compel arbitration.
Mantor appealed, argueing that the arbitration process was unforecable because it was unconsiable
Issue
Was the arbitration contract that Circuit City provided to Mantor enforceable under the contract of unconsionability.
Facts
In 1995, Circuit City instituted and arbitration program called the “Assosciate issue resolution program
In 1998, Paul Mantor met with managers to discuss the options of either joining Circuit City’s AIRP arbitration program or be terminated from the company.
Mantor was able to avoid either signing up or openly refusing to participate in the AIRP for three years.
In October 2000, Circuit City terminated Mantors employment
Rule of Law
In determining this question of whether Circuit City’s arbitration agreement with Mantor is procedurally unconscionable we must evaluate how the parties negotiated the contracts and the circumstances of the parties at the time.
The court will look at whether a contract is procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
Reasoning and Analysis
Because Circuit City presented the arbitration agreement to Mantor on an “adhere-or-reject” basis its is concluded that the arbitration process was procedurally unconscionable.
The unconscionable provisions concerning the statue of limitations, cost splitting, class actions, and Circuit City’s unilateral power to modify or terminate the arbitration agreement provide enough reason to hold these terms as substantively unconscionable.
It is concluded that it is improperly one-sided to make an employee pay a seventy five dollar filing fee to initiate an arbitration proceeding.
Holding
Because