In the case of Ross v. Menards, Inc., 2023-Ohio-2246, an appellate court held that the employee had to settle state law gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation claims against the employer through arbitration when the plain language of the employment contract mandated so.
In this case, the employee argued that arbitration was not required as the language of the employment contract did not explicitly enumerate state law gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation claims. In response, the employer argued that the employment contract included a non-exhaustive list of potential claims which included all actions arising under state law. The appellate court agreed with the employer.
In support of its decision in favor of the employer, the appellate court explained the employment contract included all actions arising under state law, and the list in the contract was merely non-exhaustive.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.