EAST ST. LOUIS - Former restaurant manager Amanda Aucutt of Dupo must abide by an arbitration agreement that she declared she didn’t remember signing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gilbert Sison ruled on May 1.
Sison found Aucutt's declaration insufficient to create a material fact dispute, and he dismissed her wrongful termination complaint against Pioneer Restaurants.
“Plaintiff does not explicitly state she did not see or sign the Agreement,” he wrote.
“Rather, plaintiff states she does not recall seeing or signing one, which is different than averring she did not see or sign it,” he added.
“Courts tasked with deciding this issue have reached the same result,” he continued.
Aucutt sued Pioneer Restaurants in October at Monroe County Circuit Court, claiming she was terminated for exercising rights under worker compensation law.
Her counsel, Mark Scoggins of Columbia, identified her as a Dupo resident.
Scoggins claimed Pioneer hired Aucutt as general manager of a restaurant in Waterloo and assigned her to other locations, including Chesterfield, Missouri.
He claimed Aucutt injured her right eye at the Chesterfield location in 2022.
He claimed she began seeking treatment with Pioneer’s knowledge and consent.
Then Pioneer allegedly terminated Aucutt last June in retaliation for exercising her rights.
Scoggins claimed Pioneer violated worker compensation laws of Illinois and Missouri.
He claimed Pioneer acted willfully with malice.
Pioneer counsel Heidi Durr of St. Louis County removed the action to district court in January, claiming diverse citizenship as a Colorado company.
Durr claimed the amount in controversy exceeded a $75,000 minimum for federal jurisdiction.
She claimed Aucutt earned a $51,297 salary and trial would likely be at least two years away.
She moved to compel arbitration in February, claiming Aucutt couldn’t have been hired or received a paycheck unless she first executed an arbitration agreement online.
She added that Aucutt could not in good faith contend that she didn’t execute the agreement.
Scoggins responded with Acutt’s declaration that, “As a manager assisting employees under the age of majority with the onboarding process, I recall there being an arbitration agreement.”
She declared, “However, according to my recollection, I have never seen nor signed the Agreement to Arbitrate that I allegedly signed at any point.”
Scoggins claimed the declaration set out facts that would be admissible in evidence.
He claimed Aucutt requested a certificate of authorization or an electronic log to authenticate the signature, but she received no such documentation.
Durr replied that Aucutt didn’t assert that she definitely did not sign the agreement.
She claimed Aucutt never requested a certificate of authorization nor an electronic log.
Durr submitted electronic data showing signatures on June 29 and July 29 of 2022.
Pioneer moved to stay the action pending a decision on the motion, and Sison postponed all deadlines and canceled a conference.
In his May 1 order, he found the Federal Arbitration Act places arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts and requires courts to enforce them according to their terms.
He found a party opposing arbitration must meet the evidentiary standard for a party opposing summary judgment.
He found the opposing party must identify specific evidence establishing a genuine dispute of material fact that must be resolved in a trial.
He added that a court conducting the assessment cannot make credibility determinations, choose between competing inferences, or balance the relative weight of conflicting evidence.
Sison found an arbitrator would resolve the dispute over the validity of the agreement.
He also found Pioneer demonstrated that an applicant had to create a unique identification and a password to complete documents such as the arbitration agreement.