Britto v. Prospect Chartercare Sjhsri, LLC , 909 F.3d 506 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 18-1422
    SYLVESTER J. BRITTO, JR.,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    PROSPECT CHARTERCARE SJHSRI, LLC; PROSPECT CHARTERCARE, LLC;
    SANDRA NASTARI; ADDY KANE,
    Defendants, Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
    [Hon. William E. Smith, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Howard, Chief Judge,
    Selya and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
    Richard A. Sinapi, with whom Joshua D. Xavier and Sinapi Law
    Associates, LTD. were on brief, for appellant.
    Jillian S. Folger-Hartwell, with whom Alexsa A. Marino and
    Littler Mendelson, P.C. were on brief, for appellees.
    November 30, 2018
    THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.        We are asked to referee yet
    another     arbitration   controversy      "in    which    the    parties    are
    litigating whether or not they should be litigating."1                  Rejecting
    Sylvester Britto's claims about the (supposed) unenforceability of
    the arbitration agreement before us, we affirm the district judge's
    order sending his case to arbitration.
    Setting the Stage
    Arbitration Agreement
    The key facts are undisputed and easily stated.                Britto
    is an African-American.        In March 1987, when he was 26, he began
    working as an at-will employee for St. Joseph Health Services of
    Rhode Island ("St. Joseph," to save keystrokes).                 Decades later,
    in   June   2014,   Prospect   Chartercare       SJHSRI,   LLC    and    Prospect
    Chartercare,     LLC   (collectively     called      "Prospect,"        following
    Britto's convention) acquired St. Joseph.2           During the transition,
    Prospect gave Britto an offer letter outlining the terms for his
    continued at-will employment.3          Among its many provisions, the
    1Anders v. Hometown Mortg. Servs., Inc., 
    346 F.3d 1024
    , 1026
    (11th Cir. 2003).
    2 The record reflects various spellings of Prospect
    Chartercare SJHSRI, LLC and Prospect Chartercare, LLC. We use the
    spelling employed in the companies' brief.
    3
    Prospect says that Prospect Chartercare SJHSRI, LLC employed
    Britto, not Prospect Chartercare, LLC; Prospect Chartercare, LLC
    is Prospect Chartercare SJHSRI, LLC's parent company, apparently.
    But that detail does not matter for our purposes.
    - 2 -
    letter noted that Prospect could "change the terms of [his]
    employment, including compensation and benefits, at any time."
    The letter also instructed him, as a condition of his continued
    employment, to sign on a line in the letter below the words
    "ACCEPTED     AND   AGREED   TO"    —    which    would   "acknowledge   [his]
    acceptance of the above terms of employment" — and to sign two
    "additional documents" included with the letter, one of which was
    an arbitration agreement.
    As relevant here, the arbitration agreement said that it
    was subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA" from now
    on).    And the agreement declared that "[t]o the fullest extent
    allowed by law, any controversy, claim or dispute between [Britto]
    and [Prospect] . . . relating to or arising out of [Britto's]
    employment or the cessation of that employment will be submitted
    to final and binding arbitration."              Taking a belt-and-suspenders
    approach, the agreement added that it "cover[ed] all employment-
    related claims including, but not limited to, claims for . . .
    violation of public policy, discrimination, harassment, or any
    other employment-related claim under any state or federal statutes
    or   laws   relating   to    an   employee's     relationship   with   his/her
    employer."    In its penultimate sentence, the arbitration agreement
    said:
    - 3 -
    BY AGREEING TO THIS BINDING MUTUAL ARBITRATION
    PROVISION, BOTH YOU AND THE COMPANY GIVE UP ALL RIGHTS
    TO A TRIAL BY JURY.
    And the agreement's last sentence proclaimed:
    BY SIGNING BELOW, I CONFIRM THAT I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND
    AND AGREE TO THIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.
    Prospect's employee handbook also emphasized that it
    "reserve[d] the right to revise, modify, delete or add to any and
    all policies, procedures, work rules or benefits stated in this
    [h]andbook or in any other document, except for the policy of at-
    will employment set forth herein."      The handbook also mentioned
    arbitration, explaining that "[a]ll employees are required to sign
    an agreement to arbitrate their employment disputes as a condition
    of employment."
    Complying with Prospect's instructions, Britto signed
    the pertinent papers at the end of a five-minute meeting with his
    supervisor.4   The supervisor never asked him to read the documents,
    never discussed the significance of the arbitration agreement, and
    never said he could have an attorney look the documents over
    (Britto had no lawyer with him at the meeting, by the way).     The
    4 Britto's brief talks a bit about the page numbers on these
    documents. "[T]he letter itself," he notes, is numbered "[p]ages
    1 and 2." "[P]age 4 is the [a]rbitration [a]greement," he adds.
    Page 3 is not in the record, however, though he suggests that
    "'[p]age 3' may refer[]" to a code-of-conduct document also
    mentioned in the letter — a document he apparently signed too.
    - 4 -
    company's   vice-president    of    human    resources   also    signed   the
    arbitration agreement.
    Lawsuit
    A few months later, in January 2015, Prospect fired
    Britto   for   (supposedly)    violating       the   company's      policies
    concerning workplace violence and harassment.            He was 54 at the
    time.    Prospect replaced him (allegedly) with a younger, non-
    African-American worker.
    Not willing to take this turn of events lying down,
    Britto filed charges of age and race discrimination with the
    appropriate state and federal civil-rights commissions.            And after
    getting right-to-sue letters from them, he filed this federal-
    court lawsuit against the defendants named in our caption, alleging
    that his discharge violated a mix of federal and state laws —
    specifically, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.
    §§ 621, et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
    §§ 2000e, et seq.; the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act,
    R.I. Gen Laws §§ 28-5-1, et seq.; and the Rhode Island Civil Rights
    Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-112-1, et seq.
    Arbitration Fight
    Insisting that the arbitration agreement was valid and
    covered Britto's claims, the defendants invoked the FAA and moved
    to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration.                A mini paper
    - 5 -
    blizzard followed, principally on the issue of whether a valid
    agreement to arbitrate existed — an issue controlled by Rhode
    Island contract law, as all agree.           See, e.g., Campbell v. Gen.
    Dynamics Gov't Sys. Corp., 
    407 F.3d 546
    , 552 (1st Cir. 2005)
    (explaining that "arbitration is a matter of contract, and for the
    most part, general principles of state contract law control the
    determination of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists")
    (citations omitted) (quoting AT&T Techs, Inc. v. Comm'cns Workers,
    
    475 U.S. 643
    , 648 (1986)).
    In his papers opposing the motion, Britto pressed two
    main points.       First he argued that the defendants should be
    collaterally     estopped   from   using   the   arbitration     agreement,
    telling the judge that a different district judge in the same court
    — in a case called Conduragis v. Prospect CharterCare, LLC, No. CV
    17-272-JJM-PAS, 
    2017 WL 5997417
    (D.R.I. Dec. 1, 2017) — held the
    same      arbitration   agreement      unenforceable      for     lack     of
    consideration.       Conduragis,    Britto    noted,   deemed    Prospect's
    promise    to   arbitrate   illusory   because   the   offer    letter   gave
    Prospect the right to tweak employment terms (of which arbitration
    was one) whenever it pleased.       And, Britto added, Conduragis also
    deemed Prospect's offer of continued at-will employment illusory
    because Prospect could fire him at any time.           Next Britto argued
    that even if collateral estoppel did not apply, the arbitration
    - 6 -
    agreement       was    still    "unenforceable      for    lack     of   legal
    consideration" for the same reasons given in Conduragis.             Plus, he
    wrote, the "procedural process" Prospect used to get him to sign
    the arbitration agreement made the agreement "unconscionable" and
    thus "unenforceable" as well.
    The defendants responded that collateral estoppel was
    inapplicable because his case and Conduragis involved dissimilar
    issues    and   parties.       The   defendants    also   claimed   that   the
    arbitration agreement was a "separate, standalone" agreement, and
    so the offer letter's reservation of rights did not cover the
    arbitration agreement — which, according to the defendants, pulled
    the rug out from under Britto's illusory-promise theory premised
    on the letter's reserving Prospect's right to revise employment
    terms at will.         But even if this were not so, the defendants
    asserted that the arbitration agreement was still enforceable
    because     Britto's     continued    employment     provided     independent
    consideration for the agreement.             And the defendants said that
    they saw no unconscionability problem, because nothing indicates
    either that Britto "lacked a meaningful choice or the requisite
    mental capacity" or that "the circumstances leading up to [his]
    signing" the arbitration agreement were "oppressive."
    - 7 -
    Judge's Decision
    Ruling on the papers, the district judge held that a
    valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed between the
    parties.      In reaching this result, the judge first chose not to
    follow Conduragis.          Unlike the Conduragis judge, the judge here
    concluded that the arbitration agreement was separate from the
    offer letter, meaning the letter's "reservation of rights [did]
    not cover the [a]greement" and thus Prospect's promise to arbitrate
    was not illusory.       Also unlike the Conduragis judge — who relied
    on a Rhode Island superior court decision, D. Miguel & Son Co. v.
    Barbosa, No. C.A. 84-3186, 
    1985 WL 663146
    (R.I. Super. Ct. Mar.
    11, 1985) ("D. Miguel," for simplicity) — our judge relied on a
    Rhode Island Supreme Court case, Oken v. Nat'l Chain Co., 
    424 A.2d 234
    , 237 (R.I. 1981), in holding that Britto's agreement "to
    continue to work in exchange for [d]efendants' promise to continue
    to   employ    and   compensate    him   for   his   services   .   .    .   [was]
    consideration sufficient to render the [a]greement enforceable."
    And having done so, the judge granted the defendant's motion to
    compel arbitration and dismissed Britto's suit without prejudice.
    From this adverse ruling Britto appeals.
    Outlining the Standard of Review
    We   review    the   judge's     legal   decision     to       compel
    arbitration with fresh eyes — i.e., "de novo," to put it in
    - 8 -
    legalese.    See, e.g., Soto-Fonalledas v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan
    Hotel Spa & Casino, 
    640 F.3d 471
    , 474 (1st Cir. 2011).         That means
    we can affirm his ruling on any ground supported by the record,
    even one he did not rely on.         See id.; see also Lang v. Wal-Mart
    Stores East, L.P., 
    813 F.3d 447
    , 454 (1st Cir. 2016) (explaining
    what de novo review means).
    Summarizing the Arguments
    Britto attacks the district judge's ruling on multiple
    grounds.    Rehashing the litany of arguments that the judge heard
    and rejected, he reminds us that the offer letter explicitly
    reserved to Prospect the right to change employment terms "at any
    time," a point "[r]einforced" in the employee handbook.          And, he
    continues, because submitting certain disputes to arbitration was
    a required term of his employment, Prospect had the right to revamp
    the arbitration agreement at its pleasure.        So reading the letter
    and the agreement together, he contends that this "escape hatch"
    — requiring him "to arbitrate" but "reserv[ing]" to Prospect "the
    right to rescind its promise to arbitrate" — made Prospect's
    arbitration promise "illusory," meaning Prospect's promise did not
    constitute sufficient "legal consideration for [his] promise to
    submit his claims to arbitration."
    Britto   also   thinks    illusoriness   infects   Prospect's
    promise in another way.       Noting that the Rhode Island superior
    - 9 -
    court in D. Miguel said that "[c]ontinued employment alone is
    insufficient consideration," see 
    1985 WL 663146
    , at *2, he argues
    as well that Prospect's promise to continue an at-will-employment
    relationship did not suffice as legal consideration because (as
    the name suggests) at-will employment is terminable by either party
    at any time. Which, to quote from his brief, means even an "implied
    promise of continued at-will employment" is "illusory."
    Then Britto turns to Conduragis.           There, Britto says, a
    different district judge in the same court — dealing with the same
    offer letter and arbitration agreement for a different Prospect
    employee   —    held   the    agreement      unenforceable     for   lack    of
    consideration    because     of   the   (allegedly)   illusory   aspects    of
    Prospect's promise.     And he contends that our judge should have
    given collateral-estoppel effect to Conduragis or at least reached
    the same result as the Conduragis judge, after doing his own
    illusory-consideration analysis — though if we "believe[]" Rhode
    Island law is "unclear," he asks us to certify a question to the
    Rhode Island Supreme Court regarding whether a promise of at-will
    employment is "valid consideration."
    Beyond these problems lies another, Britto asserts.               In
    his mind, the judge should have held the arbitration agreement
    unenforceable     as   "procedurally         unconscionable"     given      the
    surrounding circumstances — which, in his words, involved "a short
    - 10 -
    meeting, with no explanation, no time to review the documents,
    telling him it was mandatory to sign the documents, and presenting
    them as unimportant and routine."
    Defending the judge's ruling, the defendants claim that
    Britto is wrong in every way.   As they see it — and echoing what
    they said below — Prospect's promise to arbitrate is hardly
    illusory. That is because, by their lights anyway, the arbitration
    agreement was a stand-alone contract, since it required, for
    example, a separate signature.      So, they continue, the judge
    rightly ruled that the offer letter's rights reservation did not
    cover the arbitration agreement, which, per the defendants, made
    the parties' mutual promises to arbitrate non-illusory.   And, they
    stress, even if the judge botched this part of his analysis, he
    rightly deemed Prospect's continued-employment promise adequate
    consideration to support the arbitration agreement — a ruling,
    they stress, compelled by the Rhode Island Supreme Court's Oken
    opinion.   Given all this, they think the judge faultlessly found
    Conduragis unpersuasive.   And last, but not least, they also say
    that there was nothing unconscionable about the way they behaved.5
    5 For what it is worth, the parties implicitly agree that a
    court should decide the unconscionability issue vis-à-vis this
    arbitration agreement. And without saying whether either party
    could have argued for something different, we simply note that by
    not doing so, they waived any possible argument that they might
    have had. See United States v. Caramadre, 
    807 F.3d 359
    , 377 (1st
    - 11 -
    Weighing in on the Case
    Consideration
    Because arbitration is a creature of contract, see Rent-
    A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 
    561 U.S. 63
    , 67 (2010), parties
    to an arbitration agreement are generally free to agree among
    themselves on a host of things, like which claims to arbitrate and
    which law to apply (to name just two).    Keeping "such agreements
    upon the same footing as other contracts" is the primary reason
    Congress passed the FAA. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson,
    
    513 U.S. 265
    , 271 (1995) (quoting Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of
    Trs. Of Leland Stanford Univ., 
    489 U.S. 468
    , 474 (1989)).      And
    thanks to the FAA, a party upset by another's unwillingness to
    arbitrate can ask a federal court to compel arbitration consistent
    with their agreement.   See Volt Info. Scis., 
    Inc., 489 U.S. at 474-75
    .
    But to get anywhere, the asking party must show "that a
    valid agreement to arbitrate exists, that [he] is entitled to
    invoke the arbitration clause, that the other party is bound by
    that clause, and that the claim asserted comes within the clause's
    scope." 
    Campbell, 407 F.3d at 552
    (quoting InterGen N.V. v. Grina,
    
    344 F.3d 134
    , 142 (1st Cir. 2003)).   The dispute here is only over
    Cir. 2015); Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 
    659 F.3d 168
    ,
    175 (1st Cir. 2011).
    - 12 -
    the first element — whether a valid arbitration agreement exists.
    Generally speaking, courts judge the existence (or not) of an
    agreement to arbitrate by normal state-law contract principles.
    
    Id. The parties,
    as we said, agree that this means Rhode Island
    law applies here.        And we accept this sensible agreement.                  See
    Genereux v. Raytheon Co., 
    754 F.3d 51
    , 54 (1st Cir. 2014).
    According to Rhode Island law, the essential elements of
    a    validly-formed     bilateral      contract          are   "competent   parties,
    subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and
    mutuality of obligation."          DeAngelis v. DeAngelis, 
    923 A.2d 1274
    ,
    1279 (R.I. 2007) (quoting R.I. Five v. Med. Assocs. of Bristol
    Cty., Inc., 
    668 A.2d 1250
    , 1253 (R.I. 1996)).                    Consideration may
    take the form of a "legal right acquired by the promisor in
    consideration of his promise, or forborne by the promisee in
    consideration of such promise."          
    Id. (quoting Darcey
    v. Darcey, 
    71 A. 595
    ,   597    (R.I.   1909)).          In    deciding     whether    adequate
    consideration existed to form a binding contract, Rhode Island
    uses     "the   bargained-for      exchange         test,"      which   holds   that
    "something      is     bargained       for,        and     therefore    constitutes
    consideration, 'if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for
    his promise and is given by the promisee in exchange for that
    promise.'"      
    Id. (quoting Filippi
    v. Filippi, 
    818 A.2d 608
    , 624
    (R.I. 2003)).        Of course, if a promise is "illusory" — if the
    - 13 -
    promise makes performance optional with the promisor, for instance
    — then "a contract never came into existence."                Centerville
    Builders, Inc. v. Wynne, 
    683 A.2d 1340
    , 1342 (R.I. 1996) (per
    curiam); see also JPL Livery Servs., Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Admin.,
    
    88 A.3d 1134
    , 1143-44 (R.I. 2014); Vickers Antone v. Vickers, 
    610 A.2d 120
    , 123 (R.I. 1992).
    With these principles in place, we turn to the task at
    hand.
    The parties spend a lot of time debating whether the
    judge   correctly   rejected   Britto's   first   multistep    illusory-
    consideration claim, a claim (to repeat) that goes like this:
    (a) the offer letter's rights reservation — giving Prospect the
    unfettered discretion to change employment terms — covers the
    arbitration agreement, (b) making Prospect's arbitration promise
    illusory and thus (c) rendering the agreement unenforceable from
    the get-go for lack of consideration.     Ultimately, though, we need
    not join the fray, because — even assuming (arguendo in Britto's
    favor) that one must read the offer letter and the arbitration
    agreement together — the judge properly ruled that Prospect's
    promise of continued employment provided sufficient independent
    consideration to make the agreement enforceable.        See generally
    Stor/Gard, Inc. v. Strathmore Ins. Co., 
    717 F.3d 242
    , 248 (1st
    Cir. 2013) (noting that "[t]he simplest way to decide a case is
    - 14 -
    often the best" (quoting Chambers v. Bowersox, 
    157 F.3d 560
    , 564
    n.4 (8th Cir. 1998))).
    In this regard, we take our cue from the Rhode Island
    Supreme Court's opinion in Oken.             There, an employee had an at-
    will employment contract with his employer, with his compensation
    tied to a commission-based system.              
    See 424 A.2d at 237
    .       At some
    point, the employer sent the employee a missive modifying the
    commission structure.        
    Id. at 235.
            Later, after getting fired,
    the   employee     claimed      that    no   consideration       supported     the
    modification. 
    Id. at 237.
    And in a passage that directly supports
    our judge's ruling — and thus kiboshes Britto's argument to us —
    Rhode Island's highest court held that "[t]he continuation of [the
    employee's] employment was sufficient consideration to support"
    the modified employer-employee agreement.               
    Id. (emphasis added).
    Instead of addressing Oken — his briefs fail to cite,
    let alone attempt to distinguish, Oken — Britto faults the district
    judge for not following Conduragis, a decision by another district
    judge in the same district that read Rhode Island law as holding
    that continued employment was not adequate consideration.                  The big
    problem for him is that Conduragis relied not on Oken but on D.
    Miguel,   a    decision   (we    again    note,    as   a    matter   of   helpful
    repetition) by the Rhode Island trial court.                See Conduragis, 
    2017 WL 5997417
    , at *3.        Yes, D. Miguel did suggest that "[c]ontinued
    - 15 -
    employment alone is insufficient consideration" to support an
    employer-employee     agreement   because   "it   does   not   require   an
    employer to change its existing position."        See D. Miguel, 
    1985 WL 663146
    , at *2.      But D. Miguel's suggestion is the exact opposite
    of what the Rhode Island Supreme Court held years earlier in Oken.6
    And when dealing with the law of a particular state, an on-point
    opinion by that state's highest appellate court outweighs one by
    that state's trial court (or for that matter one by another state's
    court) — a truism for which no citation of authority is needed.
    So we must follow Oken, not D. Miguel.      Which is a key reason why,
    in another opinion released today, we reversed the Conduragis
    decision not to compel arbitration, see Conduragis v. Prospect
    Chartercare, LLC, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (1st Cir. 2018) [No. 18-1009,
    slip op. at 2-3] — an action that eliminates any need to consider
    the collateral-estoppel effect (if any) of Conduragis.7
    As a fallback, Britto theorizes that a contract lacks
    sufficient consideration — and is therefore unenforceable — if one
    of a party's many promises is illusory, even if another promise is
    not.       Applying his theory here, he says that because the offer
    letter gave Prospect the exclusive right to alter the arbitration
    6
    For some unknown reason, the trial court in D. Miguel made
    no mention of the Supreme Court's Oken opinion.
    7
    Britto's opening brief concedes that if "Conduragis is
    reversed," the collateral-estoppel doctrine does not apply here.
    - 16 -
    agreement, "Prospect's promise to arbitrate was illusory," making
    the agreement unenforceable — regardless of whether Prospect's
    offer of continued at-will employment was non-illusory and thus
    satisfactory consideration. But he cites no Rhode Island authority
    so holding (nor does he provide any persuasive explanation for why
    we should implement his vision of what he thinks the law should
    be).   He does cite a couple of Rhode Island cases, but only for
    the uncontested proposition that an illusory promise foists no
    performance obligations on the promisor and gives no consideration
    to the promisee.          See JPL Livery 
    Servs., 88 A.3d at 1143-44
    ;
    Centerville Builders, 
    Inc., 683 A.2d at 1341
    .                   Ultimately, by
    raising his fallback argument "in skeletal form, without citation
    to any pertinent authority," he waived it.                See Muñiz v. Rovira,
    
    373 F.3d 1
    , 8 (1st Cir. 2004); accord Medina–Rivera v. MVM, Inc.,
    
    713 F.3d 132
    , 140-41 (1st Cir. 2013).
    As    a   last-ditch    effort       on   the   consideration    issue,
    Britto implies that maybe we should certify to the Rhode Island
    Supreme   Court     the    question     of     "whether     continued     at-will
    employment is valid consideration."                 Oken obviates any need to
    certify, however.         Also, Britto argues in his reply brief that
    because   of      Prospect's     illusory       arbitration      promise,      the
    arbitration    agreement     lacked    not     only   consideration     but   also
    mutuality of agreement. We normally give no attention to arguments
    - 17 -
    débuted in a reply brief.    See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 
    162 F.3d 6
    , 11 (1st Cir. 1998).       And he gives us no reason to do
    otherwise here.
    Having    found     his       consideration-based       claims
    unpersuasive, we next explain why Birtto's unconscionability-
    centered complaints cannot save the day for him.
    Unconscionability
    We start with a preliminary point. In the jurisdictional
    section of his brief, Britto says that the judge "did not address"
    his "procedural unconscionability argument."         He says something
    similar in the brief's statement-of-the-case section.        But he does
    not brief any argument on this subject in the brief's argument
    section.   So he waived any argument that he might have had.        See,
    e.g., United States v. Parker, 
    872 F.3d 1
    , 10 n.6 (1st Cir. 2017);
    United States v. Trinidad–Acosta, 
    773 F.3d 298
    , 310 n.5 (1st Cir.
    2014).
    As for what Britto does argue — that the arbitration
    agreement is procedurally unconscionable — we note that under the
    FAA, courts analyze unconscionability "issue[s] under normal state
    law   unconscionability   standards."      See   Skirchak   v.   Dynamics
    Research Corp., 
    508 F.3d 49
    , 59 (1st Cir. 2007).      And Rhode Island
    law says courts will typically "refuse to enforce a contract" on
    unconscionability grounds
    - 18 -
    only when the inequality of the bargain was so manifest
    as to shock the judgment of a person of good sense and
    when the terms were so unreasonable that "no man in his
    senses and not under delusion, would make on the one
    hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the
    other."
    Grady v. Grady, 
    504 A.2d 444
    , 446-47 (R.I. 1986) (quoting Hume v.
    United States, 
    132 U.S. 406
    , 411 (1889)).
    We have read Grady as setting up a two-part test,
    requiring that the complaining party "prove that (1) there is an
    absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties;
    and (2) the challenged contract terms are unreasonably favorable
    to the other party."       E.H. Ashley & Co. v. Wells Fargo Alarm
    Servs., 
    907 F.2d 1274
    , 1278 (1st Cir. 1990) (emphasis added and
    internal quotation marks omitted).          As Britto notes, some courts
    assign the labels of procedural unconscionability to requirement
    "(1)" and substantive unconscionability to requirement "(2)."            He,
    for example, cites Baker v. Pawtucket Skilled Nursing & Rehab.,
    LLC, No. PC 15-0181, 
    2016 WL 4410002
    (R.I. Super. Ct. Aug. 16,
    2016),   which   uses   these   labels.      Anyway,   and   of   particular
    pertinence here, E.H. Ashley & Co. interpreted Rhode Island law as
    holding that a contract is unenforceable if it is both procedurally
    and substantively unconscionable.         We say that because E.H. Ashley
    & Co. ruled that regardless of whether the complaining party there
    could prove procedural unconscionability, its unconscionability
    - 19 -
    claim    failed     because       it   did   not   prove     substantive
    unconscionability.    
    See 907 F.2d at 1278
    .
    And that spells trouble for Britto.    After all, he pins
    his unconscionability hopes on persuading us that the "procedure"
    Prospect employed — e.g., telling him to "immediately" sign key
    documents presented at the end of a five-minute meeting, without
    a   lawyer     present,     and    without   explaining    the   papers'
    "significance" or seeing if he understood their terms — made the
    arbitration     agreement     procedurally    unconscionable.8       But
    devastating to his unconscionability claim, he makes no attempt to
    carry his burden of showing that the agreement is substantively
    unconscionable — i.e., he expends no effort to prove that the
    agreement's terms unreasonably favor Prospect.9           So, given E.H.
    Ashley & Co., his unconscionability claim fails.
    8 Pointing to two paragraphs in his affidavit, Britto's brief
    says (emphasis ours) that he "w[as] prohibited from taking the
    [a]rbitration [a]greement home to review it and/or to obtain the
    advice of an attorney." But the first affidavit paragraph provides
    that "[t]here were no attorneys present during the [m]eeting to
    explain the pages within the [p]acket and/or the consequences of
    signing said pages." And the second affidavit paragraph says that
    "[a]t no point . . . during the [m]eeting did . . . any[one] . .
    . state that I . . . w[as] permitted to take the [a]rbitration
    [a]greement home to review it and/or to obtain the advice of an
    attorney." Fairly read, then, nothing in either paragraph supports
    the "prohibited" assertion in his brief.
    9 Britto relies heavily on Baker in asking that we find the
    contract unenforceable as unconscionable. The Baker trial justice
    cited E.H. Ashley & Co. — requiring evidence of both procedural
    and substantive unconscionability to defeat a contract — but then
    - 20 -
    Wrapping Up
    Our work over, we affirm the judge's order dismissing
    the suit and compelling arbitration.      Costs to appellees.   See
    Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(2).
    refused to enforce the contract as unconscionable on the ground of
    procedural unconscionability alone. See 
    2016 WL 4410002
    , at *9-
    10 (finding procedural unconscionability when a person agreed to
    sign, without a clear explanation, a complicated legal document,
    while she was "heavily medicated" and mentally "vulnerable"). In
    so holding, the trial justice appears to have misapplied the E.H.
    Ashley & Co. standard. But absent a course correction from Rhode
    Island's highest court, we will continue to apply our previous
    interpretation of state law. See Esquire, Inc. v. Esquire Slipper
    Mfg. Co., 
    243 F.2d 540
    , 544 (1st Cir. 1957).
    - 21 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1422P

Citation Numbers: 909 F.3d 506

Judges: Howard, Selya, Thompson

Filed Date: 11/30/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (20)

Esquire, Inc. v. Esquire Slipper Manufacturing Co., Inc., ... , 243 F.2d 540 ( 1957 )

James W. Chambers v. Michael Bowersox, Warden , 157 F.3d 560 ( 1998 )

Jonah P. Anders, and All Others Similarly Situated v. ... , 346 F.3d 1024 ( 2003 )

Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan , 659 F.3d 168 ( 2011 )

Intergen N v. v. Grina , 344 F.3d 134 ( 2003 )

Rhode Island Five v. Medical Associates of Bristol County, ... , 1996 R.I. LEXIS 2 ( 1996 )

Centerville Builders, Inc. v. Wynne , 1996 R.I. LEXIS 245 ( 1996 )

United States v. Torres , 162 F.3d 6 ( 1998 )

Hume v. United States , 10 S. Ct. 134 ( 1889 )

E.H. Ashley & Co., Inc. And Willow Associates v. Wells ... , 907 F.2d 1274 ( 1990 )

Grady v. Grady , 1986 R.I. LEXIS 392 ( 1986 )

Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corp. , 508 F.3d 49 ( 2007 )

Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson , 115 S. Ct. 834 ( 1995 )

Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland ... , 109 S. Ct. 1248 ( 1989 )

Oken v. National Chain Co. , 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1010 ( 1981 )

Vickers Antone v. Vickers , 1992 R.I. LEXIS 167 ( 1992 )

Filippi v. Filippi , 2003 R.I. LEXIS 40 ( 2003 )

DeAngelis v. DeAngelis , 2007 R.I. LEXIS 63 ( 2007 )

Soto-Fonalledas v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel Spa & Casino , 640 F.3d 471 ( 2011 )

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson , 130 S. Ct. 2772 ( 2010 )

View All Authorities »