Ashton v. Menards Inc.

Background

Colleen Marie Ashton sued Menards Inc. and Justin Marsters, alleging harassment and wrongful discharge based on age and sex, as well as retaliation for whistleblowing. Ashton alleged that coworkers harassed her after she reported to management that they were stealing inventory and falsifying inventory counts. She alleged that Marsters, identified as a Menards general manager, terminated her employment in response to those reports and to conceal the alleged misconduct.

Menards and Marsters moved to dismiss the case or, alternatively, stay it and compel arbitration. At the hearing, they withdrew the request for dismissal because the Federal Arbitration Act requires a court to stay a lawsuit when it finds that the lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party requests a stay.

Arbitration agreement

The court considered evidence outside the complaint and therefore analyzed the motion under Rule 56, the summary-judgment rule. Menards submitted a sworn statement from Angela DeLapp, a Menards human-resources coordinator, stating that Ashton signed the Employee/Employer Agreement during her September 2014 orientation. The agreement stated that employment-related disputes would be resolved through final and binding arbitration and that arbitration would be the sole and exclusive forum for covered disputes. It specifically listed statutory employment claims and claims under state or common law.

Ashton said that she did not remember signing the agreement and that the signature did not entirely match her signature. The court held that these assertions did not create a genuine dispute of material fact in light of DeLapp’s sworn statement. The court also noted that Ashton did not directly deny signing the agreement, deny having an adequate opportunity to review it, or dispute that the agreement contained an arbitration provision. The court rejected any possible argument that economic stress created unlawful pressure, finding no evidence of physical force or unlawful threats. It also found that the evidence showed Ashton received the Employee/Employer Agreement—not merely an employee handbook—and had an adequate opportunity to review it.

Scope of the agreement

The court explained that under the Federal Arbitration Act, it determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether the agreement covers the dispute. Menards argued that the agreement covered Ashton’s harassment, age- and sex-based wrongful-discharge, and whistleblowing-retaliation claims. Ashton did not dispute the agreement’s scope. Because all of her claims related to her employment with Menards, the court found that they fell within the arbitration provision.

The court also considered Menards and Marsters together because Ashton alleged that Marsters acted as Menards’ agent, and Ashton did not argue that the court was the proper forum for litigating her claims against Marsters.

Order

The court ordered as follows: