An arbitration clause at Sunoco Inc. that calls for workers to submit disputes to “binding arbitration” is unenforceable because it uses ambiguous language that could be read to mean that arbitration is merely an option, a federal judge has ruled.

In his 14-page opinion in Hudyka v. Sunoco Inc., Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Timothy J. Savage refused to compel arbitration of an age discrimination suit after finding that the company’s arbitration clause did not make it clear that arbitration was mandatory.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]