Lee Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “continued employment” manifested assent where the employees had received “clear notice” that continued employment meant acceptance of an arbitration agreement
• holding that “the plain language of § 2 requires that the arbitration provision be ‘written.’ It does not, however, require that the agreement to arbitrate be signed by either party”
• holding that a mutual promise to arbitrate is adequate consideration for an arbitration agreement
• noting that the federal policy favoring arbitration is taken into consideration even in applying ordinary state law
• holding arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable because it required both parties to arbitrate covered claims
• noting that the court “readily concludes that no signature is needed to satisfy the FAA’s written requirement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).