![terminix employee handbook terminix employee handbook](https://corporateofficehq.com/ezoimgfmt/mk0corporateoffeqw1y.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Terminix-worker.jpg)
TERMINIX EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK TRIAL
Consistent with the FAA, trial courts are required to stay or dismiss proceedings and compel arbitration when the parties have entered into a valid contract containing an arbitration agreement. shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable."ĩ U.S.C. contract evidencing a transaction involving interstate commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction. Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") provides: "A written provision in any. Although mandamus relief is rarely appropriate, it is available when a party demonstrates that he has been compelled to arbitrate a claim that he did not agree to arbitrate. McNaughton filed this mandamus petition.Ī writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires the showing of: (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought (2) an imperative duty on the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so (3) the lack of another adequate remedy and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court. The trial court granted United's motion to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration. In April 1997, McNaughton sued United in a two-count complaint claiming (1) fraud based on an alleged promise by United to transfer her from United's Montgomery office to its Birmingham office, and (2) claiming intentional interference with business relations. By that time, McNaughton's former position in the Montgomery office had also been filled. However, United then notified McNaughton that it had hired another person for the Birmingham position. McNaughton alleges that after the interview process, United offered her a position in Birmingham, that she left her *594 position with United in Montgomery, and that, relying on that offer, she relocated to Birmingham. United subsequently interviewed her for a position in Birmingham. In February 1997, McNaughton requested a transfer from the Montgomery office to United's Birmingham office.
![terminix employee handbook terminix employee handbook](http://pcolegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/employee-handbook_featured.jpg)
As a condition of her employment, McNaughton signed one of these acknowledgement forms that incorporates United's arbitration policy. Thus, each employee handbook contains an acknowledgement form that incorporates an arbitration agreement. As a condition of employment, United requires all employees to resolve employment claims against United through binding arbitration. In accordance with a standard United employment policy, United issued McNaughton an employee handbook and required her to sign a form acknowledging that she had received it. In July 1996, United hired McNaughton as an account service coordinator to work in United's Montgomery office. Because we hold that the arbitration clause was contained in a binding contract, and because we reject application of the doctrine of unconscionability/mutuality of remedy, we deny the petition. In the alternative, McNaughton argues that the arbitration clause is void under the doctrine of unconscionability/mutuality of remedy. McNaughton maintains that arbitration is inappropriate because the arbitration clause contained in her employee handbook and relied on by the trial court is not part of a legally binding contract. McNaughton, the plaintiff in an action pending in the Jefferson Circuit Court, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its order compelling the arbitration of her claims against the defendant United Healthcare Services, Inc. Norris of Engel, Hairston & Johanson, P.C., Birmingham, for respondents.Ĭindy L. Debruge, and Miriam Gibson Harris of Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Birmingham and Nathan R. Taylor of Jackson, Garrison & Sumrall, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.Įdward S. United Healthcare Services, Inc., et al.).