United States Third Circuit

In an action involving the rights of a shareholder/director, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff submitted specific, undisputed evidence that she never agreed to arbitrate her discrimination claims against defendant, creating a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of an arbitration agreement; 2) court properly rejected defendant's argument that plaintiff's status as a shareholder/director of the firm implied her intent to be bound by the arbitration provision in the bylaws as explicit agreement is essential to the formation of an enforceable arbitration contract; and 3) court did not err in rejecting the defendant's equitable estoppel argument.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/22/2008
• Decided 03/24/2009
• Published 03/24/2009

Judges

• Before:  SMITH, HARDIMAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Martin J. Saunders, (Argued), Sunshine R. Fellows, Donna J. Geary, Jackson Lewis, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorneys for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Edward B. Friedman, (Argued), Gloria A. Aiello Friedman & Friedman, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorneys for Appellee.