## Facts

- Sun Constructors, Inc. hired Juan Morales, a Spanish-speaking welder in St. Croix, as an hourly employee.
- As a condition of employment, Morales attended an orientation conducted entirely in English, a language he could not understand.
- Morales was required to sign an English-language employment agreement that contained a lengthy arbitration provision spanning five paragraphs and comprising most of the agreement’s pages.
- Because Morales spoke only Spanish, Sun’s presenter asked another applicant, Jose Hodge (bilingual but not fully proficient in English), to help Morales understand the orientation and complete paperwork.
- Hodge did not specifically explain the arbitration clause, and Morales did not ask what he was signing or request a translation of the agreement.
- About a year later, Sun terminated Morales for alleged safety violations.
- Morales filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit in the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
- Sun moved to stay the case and compel arbitration under the agreement’s arbitration clause.
- The district court denied the stay, reasoning Morales had not assented to the arbitration clause because he did not realize it was in the agreement and could not read English.

## Issues

1. Whether a signatory who cannot understand the language of an employment agreement is nonetheless bound by an arbitration clause contained in that agreement absent fraud or misrepresentation.
2. Whether arbitration clauses require a heightened, “knowing consent” standard beyond ordinary objective contract-assent rules.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court held Morales was bound by the arbitration clause despite his inability to understand English.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter a stay of the judicial action pending arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- Contract formation and assent are determined by objective manifestations (e.g., signing), not a party’s subjective understanding of particular terms.
- A person who signs a contract is generally bound by its contents even if ignorant of the terms, absent generally applicable defenses such as fraud or misrepresentation.
- A language barrier, without fraud or concealment by the other party, does not negate assent; the signer bears responsibility to take reasonable steps to understand (e.g., request translation or explanation).
- Arbitration agreements are enforced on the same basis as other contracts under the Federal Arbitration Act; courts may not impose a special heightened consent requirement uniquely for arbitration clauses.
- The Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms unless a generally applicable contract defense applies.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit enforced the employment arbitration clause because Morales objectively assented by signing the agreement and alleged no fraud or concealment; his inability to read English and failure to seek translation did not invalidate the arbitration provision, and the district court was required to stay the case for arbitration.


Morales v. Sun Constructors, Inc., 541 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008)