Soto v. State Industrial Products

In 1992, State Industrial Products, Inc. and State Chemical Sales Company International, Inc. (State Chemical) (defendant) hired Vidalina Soto (plaintiff). In 1996, Soto (who was not fluent in English) signed an acknowledgment of an alternative-dispute-resolution (ADR) program, which provided for arbitration of disputes. The same day, Soto signed another acknowledgment of attending a meeting in which the ADR program was described. In 2001, Soto signed a third form stating that her employment was on an at-will basis. The third agreement also stated that consideration for the agreement was provided for by the mutual obligations of the parties and that the ADR method remained the exclusive method for handling any employment-related disputes against State Chemical. Finally, Soto signed a fourth document providing that the ADR program was effective January 1, 1996, and that her continued employment constituted consideration for acceptance of the ADR program. Under the documents, which were all written in English, both Soto and State Chemical were required to submit claims to the ADR process, subject to a few exceptions that did not include claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 2009, Soto sued State Chemical in federal court for violating the ADA. State Chemical moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) on the grounds that the arbitration agreements governed the dispute. Soto argued that the arbitration agreements lacked consideration and consent and were therefore unenforceable contracts. Soto claimed that her continued employment did not constitute consideration, that she was intimidated into signing the agreements, and that consent was lacking because she did not understand the English documents. The district court granted State Chemical’s motion, and Soto appealed.