Garrett v. Hooters Toledo
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
295 F. Supp. 2d 774 (2003)

- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
Hooters Toledo (Hooters) (defendant) required employees to sign an “Agreement to Mediate and Arbitrate Employment-Related Disputes” (agreement), which required employees to request mediation of disputes against Hooters within 10 days of the last day on which claims arose. Mediation would occur in Jefferson County, Kentucky, as opposed to Toledo, Ohio, where the parties were located. Each party would choose a mediator from a list provided by Hooters. Chris Reil (defendant), a Hooters manager, gave Rachel Garrett (plaintiff), a Hooters employee of three months, a copy of the agreement. Garrett claimed she did not understand the agreement and carried it in her bag for weeks. Reil stated that he offered to answer any questions employees had about the agreement. When Garrett arrived at work one day, Reil told her she must sign the agreement or she would not be permitted to work another shift nor be eligible for any promotion, transfer, or raise. Garrett, who was earning more money than she ever had, signed the agreement. On June 18, 2002, Garrett informed Reil that she was pregnant. Garrett contended that Reil then reduced her shifts and encouraged other employees to harass her about her pregnancy. Garrett was terminated on July 17, 2002, and her position was filled by a non-pregnant person. Garrett sued Hooters and Reil for gender discrimination, claiming the agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable under Ohio law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carr, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.