In a split decision, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered the former equipment manager of the Los Angeles Rams to submit to arbitration in a case in which he sued the NFL club for age discrimination. However, the high court opted against having NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell arbitrate the dispute, instead issuing a writ of mandamus in which “the trial court would appoint a neutral arbitrator.”
The plaintiff in the case was Todd Hewitt. Hewitt, 55, began working for the Los Angeles Rams at age 11, helping his father with the team’s equipment. Officially, he joined the staff in 1978 and succeeded his father as equipment manager in 1986. He was named NFL Equipment Manager of the Year in 1997.
Hewitt was fired in 2011, two years after Steve Spagnuolo was named head coach of the Rams. Hewitt alleged that prior to firing him, Spagnuolo “told him he was too old for his job.”
When he was fired, Hewitt was just 10 months shy of eligibility for extended health benefits for himself and his family, and would have become eligible for early retirement when he was fired in January 2011.
Hewitt sued in 2012, alleging a single claim of age discrimination in the termination of his employment in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Shortly thereafter, the Rams filed a motion to compel arbitration of Hewitt’s claim. On January 8, 2013, the trial court entered an order and judgment granting the Rams motion to compel arbitration and staying the proceedings in its court pending further proceedings in arbitration.
On January 17, 2013, Hewitt appealed, seeking a stay of the arbitration process. Denied by the court of appeals, he again appealed, this time to the state’s Supreme Court.
In its analysis, the high court determined, “under the plain language of the employment contract between Mr. Hewitt and the Rams, (that) Mr. Hewitt agreed to arbitrate his disputes against the Rams. The agreement is supported by consideration and obligates both parties to arbitrate. Further, Mr. Hewitt does not show that the circumstances under which the contract was entered into were so unconscionable as to render the agreement invalid. Therefore, there is a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.”
Next, the court turned to whether Goodell should be the arbitrator as set forth by the constitution and by-laws and rules and regulations of the National Football League as sought by the defendants.
While acknowledging that the arbitration provision “clearly states he will be bound by the Constitution and By-Laws and Rules and Regulations of the NFL,” he contends that he did not have sufficient information to make him aware of the full provisions of his employment contract because it does not directly mention the guidelines or attach them. Similarly, Hewitt “asserts that the reference to the commissioner’s authority to interpret and establish policy does not reference the terms found in the guidelines with any amount of specificity that would enable him to assent to these terms. Mr. Hewitt stated in his affidavit that he did not know of the existence of the guidelines until the Rams sought to compel him to arbitrate his age discrimination claim.”
The court agreed.
“The Rams had the burden to incorporate the terms in such a way that Mr. Hewitt could manifest his consent,” according to the majority opinion. “Having failed to do so, Mr. Hewitt did not assent to the essential terms of arbitration found in the guidelines. Though Mr. Hewitt agreed to arbitrate disputes against the Rams, the specific terms of arbitration are, therefore, unenforceable.”
Where “an arbitration agreement is valid, but specific provisions are silent or unconscionable, the failure of the terms is remedied by implying the terms from statutes within the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA),” continued the court. “Consequently, the failure of the arbitration terms set out in the guidelines does not make the agreement to arbitrate unenforceable but will require that those terms be implied by statute.”
State ex rel. Todd Hewitt, Relator, v. Honorable Kristine Kerr, Judge, Circuit Court for St. Louis County, Missouri; S. Ct. Mo.; No. SC93846, 2015 Mo. LEXIS 30; 4/29/15
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff/appellant) John D. Lynn, St. Louis, MO. (for defendants/respondents) Bradley A. Winters, Clayton, MO.
