This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was employed by D. The employment relationship was governed by a signed employment agreement that contained an arbitration clause. P was terminated by D, and he filed a wrongful termination suit. D moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, but the District Court denied the motion, finding that P signed the Agreement without realizing it contained an arbitration clause. This appeal followed. P cannot understand, and the District Court concluded that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because P did not assent to the clause. P was asked to sign the agreement while in a 2.5-hour orientation. It was conducted entirely in English. The D employee who conducted the orientation asked a bilingual applicant who was also present at the orientation if anyone needed help translating. The bilingual applicant testified that he generally understands about eighty-five percent of what is said and written in English. He also stated that P did not ask him what he was signing and that he did not specifically explain the arbitration clause to P. D fired P for allegedly dumping a bottle of urine from a great height on another contractor's employees in violation of safety standards.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.