Authored by Ollie Lammers
According to LexBlog, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. The plaintiff, in this case, was suing their employer, a Taco Bell franchisee, for wage theft.
The Supreme Court ruled that the defense can not try to pursue arbitration after a plaintiff has pursued litigation. The case of Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. shows that the plaintiff agreed to arbitration when they applied for a position at Taco Bell.
Morgan claims the company garnished her wages and sought a nationwide claim against the company. The company waited until eight months into the litigation process before they attempted to force arbitration on Morgan.
The plaintiff argued Sundance had given up their rights to arbitration because they were well into the litigation process.
The Supreme Court heard the case due to the circuit courts' inability to come to a concise conclusion. Nine circuit courts had reviewed the case and were split on if a ruling showing harm was required to waive arbitration agreements.
The Supreme Court said the Federal Arbitration Act favors arbitration, but judges cannot treat arbitration contracts differently than any other contract.
For more information on this ruling, click here for the full LexBlog article.
