Arbitration in employment disputes; Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); Adhesion contract; Unconscionability; Rayford v American House Roseville I LLC; Enforceability of arbitration provision; Johnson v Best Buy Co Inc (On Remand); Fair Treatment Process (FTP)

The court held that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Rayford did not alter its prior conclusion that plaintiffs’ employment claims were subject to enforceable arbitration agreements under defendants’ FTP. Plaintiffs, former DMC employees, asserted WPA, wrongful-discharge, and related claims after their employment was terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each had agreed to the FTP, which required final and binding arbitration of employment-related disputes. The court previously reversed the trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration, but the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Rayford. On appeal, the court held that Rayford did not require a different result because “the issue presented did not involve the reasonableness of a shortened limitations period, but rather the application of an arbitration provision.” It further held that the published decision in Johnson controlled the arbitration question, explaining that “principles relating to adhesion and form contracts could nonetheless result in a reasonable agreement” where the arbitration provision was mutual, used standard arbitration rules, and identified the claims subject to arbitration. Applying Johnson, the court concluded that the FTP “involved standard arbitration rules, applied to all parties, and addressed the provision language to determine the claims included, indicating it remained enforceable.” Reversed and remanded.