Alonso v. Huron Valley: Employer Waivers Not Valid Unless “Intelligently Waived”

The Sixth Circuit recently issued a notable non-published decision that breaks from the prevailing judicial trend favoring arbitration by striking down certain provisions of an employment application because the employees had not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived their rights. In Alonso v. Huron Valley Ambulance, Inc., 2010 WL 1644233, No. 09-1812 (6th Cir. April 26, 2010), the Court declared invalid provisions of an employment application that required prospective employees to waive their right to take their employment disputes to court and to agree to shorten their statute of limitations for all employment disputes to six months. The decision is notable in recognizing that there are limits to how far a company can push its employees to give up their right to go to court.

BACKGROUND

Huron Valley Ambulance (“HVA”) hired Alan and Kimberly Alonso in 2005. Prior to being hired, the Alonsos had to fill out and sign an employment application. The last page of the application included a notice of an internal grievance procedure for employment-related claims and a six-month statute of limitations period for any such claims. After they were hired, HVA gave the Alonsos the company policy manual that provided the details of the grievance process and the use of a “grievance review board.”

Two years later, Alan joined the Army National Guard, and while HVA approved his request for leave to attend training, it learned that he did not attend one of the trainings. Alan also filed a health and safety complaint with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Alan later suffered a medical emergency while taking prescribed medication and HVA subsequently fired him, both for misrepresenting his training schedule (HVA presented evidence that Alan was at an amusement park when he claimed he would be at training exercises) and for working while taking a mind-altering and function-altering substance. HVA’s grievance review board upheld the termination.

Kimberly asked for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for her pregnancy. She alleged that after she returned to work, she suffered a hostile work environment and retaliation for taking the leave.

Kimberly and Alan filed suit together, alleging discrimination and retaliation. The district court dismissed all claims, finding that as to Alan, the grievance review board process had been fair. As to Kimberly, the court found that she had not exhausted her administrative remedies because she had failed to use the grievance review board process. The Alonsos appealed.

An Employee’s Right to Sue Must be “Intelligent” Waived

The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the waivers in the employment application were invalid and that the couple could proceed in pursuing their claims in federal court. The Court found that the couple did not “knowingly and intelligently” waive their right to judicial recourse because they did not know exactly what they were signing, nor were they informed about the nature of the litigation alternative required by HVA. Alonso v. Huron Valley Ambulance, Inc., 2010 WL 1644233, No. 09-1812 (6th Cir. April 26, 2010), *6.

“At the time the Alonsos signed waivers of their rights to a judicial forum, they had no idea what the Grievance Review Board process entailed. They were never informed of their right to revoke their waiver. They were not given any documentation regarding the process until almost a month after they began their employment with HVA.” Id. Given all these facts, the couple could not have “knowingly and voluntarily” waived their right to go to court. Id.
Upon finding that the Alonsos did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their rights to go to court, the Court held that the statute of limitations waivers were similarly invalid. Id. at *7.

CONCLUSION

The Alonso case is notable due to its break from the current trend – it is uncommon for courts to strike waivers in employment agreements. Certainly, HVA had presented evidence that the plaintiffs had abused their ability to request time off of work, but the evidence also painted the grievance review process as weighted against the employee, as three of the five members of the board had to be HVA managers.

The Alonso Court seemed to want to make it clear that employers cannot obtain waivers just by having employees sign on the dotted line. Employers must explain the waivers to prospective employees and give them an opportunity to ask questions and think about it. Without publication, Alonso will be a difficult case for employees to use as authority in court, but employers should heed the warning presented by the case nonetheless.

Connect on Linkedin®

Jeremy J. Gray

Also See:

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church v. EEOC: Supreme Court Confirms Ministerial Exception to Employment

US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen: Third Circuit Limits ERISA Fiduciary Relief; Allows Equitable Reformation

Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc: An Employee on Legal Prescription Medication May be Fired For Safety Reasons as Long as the Employee is not “Disabled”

Reid v. Google: Stray Remarks May Be Considered Evidence of Discrimination

City of Ontario v. Quon: Limited Privacy Rights for Employer-Issued Equipment