Seventh Circuit Affirms Denial of Arbitration for Employee Who Says HR Filled Out Forms for Him

Rashaan Carter sued SP Plus Corporation for alleged minimum wage violations under state and federal statutes. The parking services company moved to compel arbitration based on a checked box in Carter's onboarding paperwork, asserting that the mark constituted verbal assent to the terms.

The dispute centered on whether Carter actually agreed to arbitrate or whether SP Plus human resources representative Brenjy Etienne filled out and signed the forms on his behalf without explanation or consent.

U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo initially granted SP Plus's motion to stay the litigation pending arbitration. She later acknowledged she had jumped the gun by granting the motion without notice to Carter.

After receiving the initial decision, Carter filed an affidavit stating that Etienne filled out and "signed" most of the forms, including the arbitration assent, without explaining what they were or offering him an option to decline.

Judge Bucklo lifted the stay, noting that SP Plus failed to engage with Carter's account of the onboarding process. She wrote that she could not determine that a valid agreement to arbitrate was formed based on the record before her.

Rather than present evidence contradicting Carter's account, SP Plus immediately appealed. The Seventh Circuit rejected the company's arguments that federal policy favors arbitration, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in *Morgan v. Sundance*.

Writing for a unanimous panel, Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook held that SP Plus waived its right to challenge Carter's version of events by failing to present contradicting evidence in the district court.

"Having said nary a peep on the subject in the district court, SP Plus forfeited any opportunity for a hearing," Easterbrook wrote. "This means that the district court's order conclusively denied the request for arbitration and so is appealable."

The court noted it would have been easy for SP Plus to file an affidavit from Etienne stating that Carter personally agreed to arbitration, "easy, that is, if Etienne remembers obtaining his assent."

Easterbrook was sharply critical of SP Plus's briefing, which characterized Carter's affidavit as "self-serving" and argued for a "strong federal policy favoring arbitration."

The judge wrote that "a brief that repeats canards expressly rejected by decisions such as Morgan and Hill is hard to take seriously," referring to precedents that reject pro-arbitration thumb-on-the-scale approaches.