Last month, two Ohio Courts of Appeal ruled against employers attempting to enforce arbitration clauses. In the first, the Court affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration and held that the trial court was not required to hold a jury trial on the enforceability of the clause. Costin v. Midwest Vision Partners LLC, 2024-Ohio-463. The parties had amended the plaintiff’s employment agreement upon his termination of employment and specified which clauses of his former agreement would survive termination of his employment. The arbitration clause was not one of the provisions that the amended agreement listed as surviving his employment termination. Accordingly, the trial court could grant summary judgment on that issue. In the second case, the Court reversed and remanded the dispute where the plaintiff’s age discrimination claim had been stayed pending arbitration because the trial court had failed to consider the plaintiff’s argument that the "loser pays" provision of the arbitration clause was unconscionable, contrary to public policy and unenforceable. Grimm v. Professional Dental Alliance, LLC, 2024-Ohio-637.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
