Morales v. Sun Constructors - No. 2007/0005, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112535 (D.V.I. Sep. 19, 2007)

Rule:

Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute to which he has not agreed so to submit. When deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question, the Court applies territorial law principles.

Facts:

Before commencement of employment with defendant Sun Constructors Inc, the defendant required plaintiff Juan Morales to attend an employee orientation. Such orientation was provided to several other employees along with the plaintiff. One of those employees, was a native Spanish speaker, like the plaintiff, but also had a strong grasp of English. Upon the defendant’s request, he translated portions of the orientation and parts of the Hourly Employee agreement for the plaintiff. However, he failed to translate the arbitration provisions and never told plaintiff that by signing the agreement he would be waiving his right to a jury trial. Plaintiff then claimed that although he signed the disputed agreement, he never agreed to arbitrate in that he did not read English and did not realize that he was signing an agreement containing arbitration provisions. As such, the plaintiff was attacking the making of the agreement to arbitrate rather than the arbitration agreement itself. In addition, he did not attack the making of the agreement as a whole, but only the incorporated agreement to arbitrate. Thus, this was a matter for the Court to adjudicate.

Issue:

Should the plaintiff be compelled to arbitrate his claims against the defendant?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court observed at the hearing that the plaintiff understood very little English and that he cannot read the same. The Court also found that plaintiff signed the agreement without realizing that it contained an arbitration clause. The court held that if the plaintiff had been alerted that the agreement contained any provisions requiring closer circumspection, he may have been obliged to seek further translation or clarification. However, from the evidence presented, the Court cannot find that plaintiff would have known that there was anything particular in the agreement that would have warranted further review. The court also found that it was unclear exactly what the employee told the plaintiff. However, the record did indicate that he never explained to the plaintiff that the agreement contained an arbitration provision. Thus, the Court found that there was no mutual assent, therefore, plaintiff did not knowingly consent to arbitration. Accordingly, the Court will not compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against defendant.