Mary Kay Morrow was hired by Hallmark in 1982. At the start of 2002, while Morrow was working as an associate product manager, Hallmark adopted, effective January 5, 2002, a policy applicable to its employees called the Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program.

This policy provided that if an employee continued to work for Hallmark after the policy became effective, the employee would thereby be deemed to have agreed to submit to the company’s procedures for resolving claims against the company, which included binding arbitration in lieu of litigation. Hallmark reserved the right to unilaterally make changes and retained the right to select the arbitrator. Morrow received a copy of the policy, and she continued working for Hallmark through and after the effective date of January 5, 2002. On April 8, 2003, Hallmark terminated Morrow’s employment. Morrow claimed that Hallmark discriminated against her because of her age and retaliated against her
for complaining about Hallmark policies. Hallmark’s position was that Morrow was terminated for poor work performance after  attempts to improve her performance through coaching and a performance improvement plan. Hallmark sought to enforce the binding arbitration provision, and Morrow contended that arbitration should not be compelled in this case.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Employment agreements for binding arbitration are valid only if agreed to. Should Morrow’s continued employment be considered  agreement to the Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program terms?

2. Should the binding arbitration provision of the Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program be found enforceable or unenforceable? Why or why not?