McMurray v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC

Background

James McMurray sued AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, asserting discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota common-law claim of intrusion on seclusion. AT&T removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration and stay the court proceedings.

AT&T had sent McMurray emails in 2011 describing a Management Arbitration Agreement. The emails explained that covered disputes would be resolved by independent arbitration rather than by a court or jury and gave McMurray until February 6, 2012, to opt out. The emails stated that employees would not face adverse consequences for opting out.

McMurray accessed the agreement through AT&T’s corporate intranet using his company username and password and clicked a button labeled “Review Complete.” He did not opt out by the deadline and continued working for AT&T until early 2020.

Validity of the Agreement

The court applied Minnesota contract law, which requires a definite offer, acceptance, and consideration. It found that AT&T’s emails and the linked agreement clearly described the arbitration process, the types of covered claims, the exclusive arbitration remedy, and the method and deadline for accepting or rejecting the agreement. The court concluded that these communications constituted a valid offer.

The court concluded that McMurray accepted the offer through his conduct. Although he did not sign the agreement, he did not opt out and continued working for AT&T after receiving notice of the agreement. The court also rejected McMurray’s argument that he could not be bound because he did not understand arbitration, explaining that the communications described arbitration and gave him time to ask questions or opt out.

The court found consideration because both McMurray and AT&T promised to give up pursuing covered claims in court and instead use arbitration. It also rejected McMurray’s unconscionability argument. The court reasoned that he had a meaningful choice because he could opt out without adverse consequences. Because the agreement did not require a signature, the court did not address McMurray’s argument that it violated Minnesota Statute section 572B.31.

Scope of the Agreement

The court determined that the agreement used broad language covering claims arising out of or related to McMurray’s employment or termination, employment-relationship disputes, discrimination claims, claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other state and local statutory and common-law claims.

McMurray argued that his privacy-related claim was outside the agreement because privacy violations were not specifically listed. The court disagreed. It found that the alleged violation of AT&T’s policy resulted in the termination of McMurray’s employment and that the agreement’s broad language encompassed his claims.

Disposition

The court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and covered McMurray’s claims. It granted AT&T’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. The order states that the parties are bound by an arbitration agreement and that the matter is stayed pending arbitration. The court did not decide whether McMurray’s discrimination or intrusion-on-seclusion claims were substantively valid.