Gibson v. Neighborhood Health Clinics
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
121 F.3d 1126 (1997)

- Written by Emily Pokora, JD
Facts
Mona Gibson (plaintiff) was formerly employed by Neighborhood Health Clinics, Inc. (NHC) (defendant) and rehired on December 22, 1994. Before Gibson reported to work on January 9, 1995, NHC distributed a new Associates Policy Manual (manual) to its employees, who were required to acknowledge receipt by signing an Associates Understanding (understanding). The understanding had a provision requiring employees to waive their rights to a jury trial and requiring any and all disputes to be resolved through NHC’s grievance and arbitration provisions stated in the manual. The manual but not the understanding included language binding NHC to the arbitration process. The manual required all disputes to be handled through arbitration under the Indiana Uniform Arbitration Act. The manual’s provisions were not in effect when Gibson previously worked at NHC, and she did not receive a copy of the manual until her first day, after she was asked to sign the understanding. Gibson was told that the understanding related to time-off grievances. Gibson signed the understanding but not the manual. After filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Gibson filed a Title VII Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaint against NHC, alleging discrimination. The district court granted NHC’s motion to dismiss based on the arbitration provision. Gibson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.