## Facts

- Natalie Ragland sued her employer, IEC U.S. Holdings, Inc. (doing business as Florida Career College), for age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA and the Florida Civil Rights Act.
- During Ragland’s 2018 application process, she electronically signed an employment application acknowledging arbitration as the exclusive forum for disputes, but the application also stated it did not constitute a contract.
- IEC later sent an offer letter indicating employment was conditioned on completing onboarding documents, including a separate, stand-alone “Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Arbitration Agreement.”
- On her first day, Ragland received the stand-alone arbitration agreement and wrote “No Refused” on the signature line before returning it, asserting she was instructed to indicate refusal if she did not want to arbitrate.
- IEC sought to compel arbitration, arguing Ragland assented through the application acknowledgment, the offer letter’s condition of employment language, and her acceptance and commencement of employment.
- The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding IEC failed to prove formation of a valid arbitration agreement because Ragland’s “No Refused” was an express rejection that negated any earlier indications of assent.

## Issues

1. Whether IEC carried its burden to prove the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate under applicable state contract-formation principles.
2. Whether Ragland’s written “No Refused” on the stand-alone arbitration agreement nullified any earlier claimed assent arising from the application, offer letter, or starting work.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the order denying IEC’s motion to compel arbitration.
- The court accepted the district court’s factual finding that Ragland wrote “No Refused” and treated it as an express refusal to arbitrate.
- Because IEC’s own documents made the stand-alone arbitration agreement the operative instrument, IEC could not establish mutual assent without acceptance of that agreement.
- The application and offer letter did not independently create an enforceable arbitration contract, particularly where the application disclaimed contractual effect and the offer letter required execution of the separate agreement.
- IEC failed to meet its burden to show a valid arbitration agreement; therefore, arbitration could not be compelled.

## Legal Principles

- A party moving to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving a valid arbitration agreement exists.
- Courts determine whether an arbitration agreement was formed by applying state contract law, including the requirement of mutual assent.
- An employee’s express written refusal to accept a proposed arbitration agreement is non-assent and can defeat enforcement even if earlier documents referenced arbitration.
- When an employer designates a stand-alone arbitration agreement as the controlling document, formation generally turns on whether that agreement was accepted; preliminary materials that disclaim contractual status are not treated as the operative contract.

## Conclusion

The court held that IEC did not prove mutual assent to arbitrate because Ragland expressly refused the stand-alone arbitration agreement, and the earlier application and offer-letter references to arbitration did not substitute for acceptance of the operative agreement.


Ragland v. IEC U.S. Holdings, Inc., 2024 WL 340849 (11th Cir. 2024)