Labor & Employment Law

Spanish speaker bound by English agreement

Morales sued the employer, asserting various claims arising from his discharge from employment. The employer moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion. The 3rd Circuit reversed. Morales v. Sun Constructers (3rd Cir 08/28/2008).

The trial court determined that Morales didn't assent to the written arbitration agreement and thus declined to enforce it, based on its finding that the agreement was in English and Morales (who spoke only Spanish) didn't understand it.

The 3rd Circuit concluded that the trial court erred. The court cited Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 US 45 (1875) for the proposition that "[i]t will not do for a man to enter into a contract, and, when called upon to respond to its obligations, to say that he did not read it when he signed it, or did not know what it contained."

The court noted that, under the "objective theory" of contract formation, "what is essential is not assent, but rather what the person to whom a manifestation is made is justified as regarding as assent." The court concluded that, absent a showing of fraud, "the fact that an offeree cannot read, write, speak, or understand the English language is immaterial to whether an English-language agreement the offeree executes is enforceable."

My view: Courts are required to treat agreements to arbitrate on the same basis that they treat contracts generally. Under the almost-universal rule that a person is bound by the terms of a signed agreement (even if the signer did not understand it), the agreement can be enforced. Therefore, the decision is correct, and it's a little difficult to understand why the trial court thought the agreement should not be enforced.

Full post as published by Arbitration Blog on August 29, 2008 (boomark / email).