{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:us:fae3c7","proof":"sha256:dda266966e5e978afe6b25ee8a74ee51c2985e1a3892023f096e508c343be8a2","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"","paragraphs":["para_1"]},{"title":"COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"PERRI KUSHAN, ET AL., :","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Plaintiffs-Appellants, :","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 115666","paragraphs":["para_8"]},{"title":"KING DAVID POST ACUTE NURSING","paragraphs":["para_10"]},{"title":"Defendants-Appellees. :","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 16, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Case No. CV-25-110659","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appearances:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"HABER LLP, Richard C. Haber, Lindsey K. Self, and","paragraphs":["para_19","para_20","para_21"]},{"title":"ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Plaintiffs-appellants Perri Kushan and Linda Novak-Eedy","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(collectively, “appellants”) appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the","paragraphs":["para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28"]},{"title":"I. Facts and Procedural History","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appellants were employed as dietitians at a long-term care facility","paragraphs":["para_31"]},{"title":"1989, and Novak-Eedy began her employment in May 1990. Both appellants were","paragraphs":["para_33","para_34"]},{"title":"In 2023, defendant-appellee Outcome Healthcare LLC (“Outcome”)","paragraphs":["para_36"]},{"title":"David Post Acute Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC (“King David”). Appellants","paragraphs":["para_38"]},{"title":"Liliestedt (“Liliestedt”) and defendant-appellee Tara Miller (“Miller”) were","paragraphs":["para_40"]},{"title":"On or about December 13, 2023, representatives from Outcome","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45"]},{"title":"Employees received an email from HostedTime with instructions on how to create","paragraphs":["para_47"]},{"title":"The onboarding documents included a USCIS Form I-9, an IRS Form","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"W-4, a Non-Union PTO Plan Acknowledgement, an IRS Form 8850, a Time Clock","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Procedures Acknowledgement, a Confidentiality and HIPAA Acknowledgement, a","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Confidentiality in the Workplace and Resident Information Agreement, a Release","paragraphs":["para_52"]},{"title":"Mutual Arbitration Agreement (the “Arbitration Agreement”). The Arbitration","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Agreement was the final document presented to employees through the HostedTime","paragraphs":["para_55"]},{"title":"The Arbitration Agreement was a four-page document between the","paragraphs":["para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61"]},{"title":"Arbitration Agreement further provided that, by signing, the employee was","paragraphs":["para_63"]},{"title":"The Arbitration Agreement contained a one-year contractual","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66","para_67"]},{"title":"Arbitration within such one (1) year period shall operate as a bar to any subsequent","paragraphs":["para_69","para_70","para_71"]},{"title":"Agreement also contained a 30-day rescission provision permitting an employee to","paragraphs":["para_73","para_74","para_75"]},{"title":"Facility in writing within thirty (30) days of the employment date.” Arbitration","paragraphs":["para_77"]},{"title":"According to appellants, the HostedTime portal prompted each","paragraphs":["para_79","para_80"]},{"title":"Appellants averred that they were not given an opportunity to negotiate any part of","paragraphs":["para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88"]},{"title":"Rodriguez, King David’s current human resources director, who stated that","paragraphs":["para_90"]},{"title":"HostedTime at any time and that Kushan logged into HostedTime numerous times","paragraphs":["para_92"]},{"title":"Appellants’ employment was terminated on September 9, 2024. Both","paragraphs":["para_94"]},{"title":"Kushan filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Commission on September 27, 2024, and Novak-Eedy filed a similar charge on","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"October 3, 2024. On October 9, 2024, counsel for appellants notified appellees that","paragraphs":["para_98"]},{"title":"Commission, and intended to pursue legal action. Between October 9, 2024, and","paragraphs":["para_100"]},{"title":"On January 21, 2025, appellants filed their complaint in the trial","paragraphs":["para_102"]},{"title":"R.C. 4112.02 (Count 1); aiding and abetting age discrimination in violation of","paragraphs":["para_104"]},{"title":"Appellees’ counsel also represented the defendants in a separate but","paragraphs":["para_106","para_107"]},{"title":"Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-24-108123, was litigated in","paragraphs":["para_109"]},{"title":"On February 24, 2025, King David, Liliestedt, and Miller filed an","paragraphs":["para_111","para_112"]},{"title":"Outcome filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Civ.R. 12(B)(2). Outcome’s motion to dismiss did not assert any right to arbitrate","paragraphs":["para_115"]},{"title":"On March 10, 2025, appellants served their first set of discovery","paragraphs":["para_117","para_118"]},{"title":"Outcome executed in or around December 2023.” Request for Admission No. 3","paragraphs":["para_120","para_121"]},{"title":"On March 13, 2025, Outcome filed the affidavit of H. Jason Black","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(“Black”), the Administrator for King David, as an exhibit to its reply in support of","paragraphs":["para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127"]},{"title":"Agreement signed by Yormick. On March 18, 2025, appellants supplemented their","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130"]},{"title":"On April 3, 2025, appellees’ former counsel requested a 28-day","paragraphs":["para_132"]},{"title":"2025, appellees retained new counsel. New counsel entered a notice of substitution","paragraphs":["para_134"]},{"title":"Yormick action. Outcome’s answer in Yormick did not assert arbitration as an","paragraphs":["para_136","para_137"]},{"title":"On May 1, 2025, additional counsel for appellees entered a notice of","paragraphs":["para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145"]},{"title":"On May 27, 2025, appellants served their second set of discovery","paragraphs":["para_147","para_148","para_149"]},{"title":"On July 16, 2025, appellees’ counsel notified appellants’ counsel that","paragraphs":["para_151"]},{"title":"Ms. Yormick, Ms. Kushan, and Ms. Novak-Eedy.” Appellees then provided copies","paragraphs":["para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158"]},{"title":"Arbitration Agreement on July 11, 2025, while reviewing appellants’ personnel and","paragraphs":["para_160"]},{"title":"On August 4, 2025, appellants filed an unopposed motion for a seven-","paragraphs":["para_162","para_163","para_164"]},{"title":"Arbitration Agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, that","paragraphs":["para_166","para_167","para_168"]},{"title":"On August 15, 2025, the trial court set a case-management conference","paragraphs":["para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175"]},{"title":"On September 2, 2025, appellants filed a motion for leave to file a","paragraphs":["para_177","para_178"]},{"title":"On September 4, 2025, the trial court entered a journal entry","paragraphs":["para_180","para_181","para_182"]},{"title":"On September 19, 2025, appellees filed an unopposed motion for","paragraphs":["para_184"]},{"title":"September 4, 2025 order to reflect that the case was being referred to arbitration","paragraphs":["para_186","para_187"]},{"title":"On September 25, 2025, the trial court in the related Yormick action","paragraphs":["para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194"]},{"title":"On October 1, 2025, the trial court entered a journal entry granting","paragraphs":["para_196","para_197","para_198"]},{"title":"1 Yormick filed an appeal with this court, and in Yormick v. King David Post Acute","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Nursing & Rehab. LLC, 2026-Ohio-1776, ¶ 1 (8th Dist.), this court affirmed the trial","paragraphs":["para_201","para_202","para_203"]},{"title":"On October 6, 2025, appellants timely filed their notice of appeal","paragraphs":["para_205","para_206"]},{"title":"1. The trial court committed reversible error when it granted","paragraphs":["para_208","para_209","para_210"]},{"title":"2. The trial court committed reversible error when it referred the","paragraphs":["para_212","para_213"]},{"title":"3. The trial court committed reversible error when it compelled the","paragraphs":["para_215","para_216"]},{"title":"II. Arbitration","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A. Standard of Review","paragraphs":["para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223"]},{"title":"2015-Ohio-4485, ¶ 47 (8th Dist.); DeVito v. Autos Direct Online, Inc., 2015-Ohio-","paragraphs":["para_225"]},{"title":"An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a","paragraphs":["para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231"]},{"title":"Dist.); Blue Technicians Smart Solutions, L.L.C. v. Ohio Collaborative Learning","paragraphs":["para_233","para_234","para_235"]},{"title":"However, an arbitration provision, like any contract clause, will not be enforced if it","paragraphs":["para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241"]},{"title":"B. Law and Analysis","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In their first assignment of error, appellants argue that the trial court","paragraphs":["para_244","para_245","para_246"]},{"title":"Substantive unconscionability concerns the terms of the agreement","paragraphs":["para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251"]},{"title":"Appellants contend that the Arbitration Agreement is substantively","paragraphs":["para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257"]},{"title":"The Arbitration Agreement at issue is a stand-alone, four-page","paragraphs":["para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266"]},{"title":"With respect to the fee-splitting provision, appellants assert that the","paragraphs":["para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273"]},{"title":"Ohio-3336, at ¶ 35 (8th Dist.) (party challenging arbitration on cost grounds must","paragraphs":["para_275"]},{"title":"As to the one-year limitations period, Ohio courts have repeatedly","paragraphs":["para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282"]},{"title":"Indeed, appellants here filed charges with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission within","paragraphs":["para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288"]},{"title":"Appellants’ contention that the agreement deprives them of","paragraphs":["para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295"]},{"title":"Appellants have not carried their burden of demonstrating that the","paragraphs":["para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300"]},{"title":"Procedural unconscionability focuses on the circumstances","paragraphs":["para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306"]},{"title":"Appellants argue that the agreement was procedurally","paragraphs":["para_308","para_309","para_310"]},{"title":"(3) employees could not negotiate any term; (4) employees could not download or","paragraphs":["para_312","para_313"]},{"title":"While the manner of presentation, particularly through an electronic","paragraphs":["para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318"]},{"title":"First, the Arbitration Agreement was a stand-alone, four-page","paragraphs":["para_320"]},{"title":"It was not buried in fine print within a larger document. The agreement itself","paragraphs":["para_322","para_323","para_324"]},{"title":"Second, and most significant, the agreement contained a 30-day","paragraphs":["para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331"]},{"title":"Facility in writing within thirty (30) days of the employment date.” Arbitration","paragraphs":["para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338"]},{"title":"Third, appellants are educated adult professionals with decades of","paragraphs":["para_340","para_341"]},{"title":"Although the agreement was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis as a condition of","paragraphs":["para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346"]},{"title":"Fourth, appellants’ assertion that they could not later access the","paragraphs":["para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355"]},{"title":"On this record, appellants have not demonstrated that the agreement","paragraphs":["para_357"]},{"title":"Because appellants have failed to establish either substantive or","paragraphs":["para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362"]},{"title":"In their second assignment of error, appellants argued that the trial","paragraphs":["para_364"]},{"title":"King David, Outcome, Liliestedt, and Miller waived any right to arbitrate by acting","paragraphs":["para_366"]},{"title":"A party may waive the right to arbitrate, like any other contractual","paragraphs":["para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371"]},{"title":"In determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a","paragraphs":["para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383"]},{"title":"On March 13, 2025, in the companion Yormick matter, counsel for Outcome filed","paragraphs":["para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388"]},{"title":"Arbitration Agreement before the trial court. By that date at the latest, appellees","paragraphs":["para_390","para_391"]},{"title":"Although appellees represented to the trial court that current counsel","paragraphs":["para_393","para_394"]},{"title":"Arbitration Agreement was drafted by, executed in favor of, and held within the","paragraphs":["para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399"]},{"title":"The closer question, and the one on which this assignment of error","paragraphs":["para_401","para_402"]},{"title":"As to the first factor, appellees did not invoke the jurisdiction of the","paragraphs":["para_404","para_405"]},{"title":"Outcome filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(2) motion challenging personal jurisdiction. A motion","paragraphs":["para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416"]},{"title":"4506, at ¶ 24. The record further reflected that during a substantial portion of this","paragraphs":["para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421"]},{"title":"As to the third factor, the extent of appellees’ participation in the","paragraphs":["para_423"]},{"title":"The motion practice that occurred was confined to Outcome’s threshold personal","paragraphs":["para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434"]},{"title":"The court acknowledged appellants’ contention that appellees’","paragraphs":["para_436","para_437","para_438"]},{"title":"However, objections lodged during pre-arbitration jurisdictional discovery, even","paragraphs":["para_440","para_441","para_442"]},{"title":"As to the fourth factor, prejudice, appellants were required to","paragraphs":["para_444"]},{"title":"Midland Funding, 2022-Ohio-4506, at ¶ 25. The record did not establish such","paragraphs":["para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453"]},{"title":"Considering the totality of the circumstances under the four-factor","paragraphs":["para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463"]},{"title":"Midland Funding, 2022-Ohio-4506, at ¶ 17. Accordingly, the trial court did not err","paragraphs":["para_465","para_466"]},{"title":"In their third assignment of error, appellants argued that the trial","paragraphs":["para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473"]},{"title":"The Arbitration Agreement signed by each appellant contains a one-","paragraphs":["para_475"]},{"title":"Any request for arbitration of a dispute must be requested and","paragraphs":["para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484"]},{"title":"Appellants were terminated on September 9, 2024. Appellees did not","paragraphs":["para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491"]},{"title":"According to appellants, the consequence of that expiration was that the claims fell","paragraphs":["para_493","para_494"]},{"title":"The threshold question, however, is not whether the one-year","paragraphs":["para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503"]},{"title":"Appellants did not dispute, and could not credibly dispute, that the","paragraphs":["para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510"]},{"title":"The dispute about the one-year provision in Paragraph E is not a","paragraphs":["para_512","para_513","para_514"]},{"title":"That is the paradigmatic procedural question reserved for the","paragraphs":["para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521"]},{"title":"Ohio’s strong policy in favor of allowing arbitrators to decide such procedural","paragraphs":["para_523","para_524"]},{"title":"By its own terms, Paragraph E bars “any subsequent requests for arbitration, or for","paragraphs":["para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535"]},{"title":"The trial court did not compel arbitration of claims “outside the","paragraphs":["para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546"]},{"title":"It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this","paragraphs":["para_548"]},{"title":"A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule","paragraphs":["para_550","para_551"]},{"title":"ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR","paragraphs":[]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as Kushan v. King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2717.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"PERRI KUSHAN, ET AL., :","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Plaintiffs-Appellants, :","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"No. 115666","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v. :","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"KING DAVID POST ACUTE NURSING","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"& REHABILITATION LLC, ET AL., :","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Defendants-Appellees. :","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 16, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Case No. CV-25-110659","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Appearances:","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"HABER LLP, Richard C. Haber, Lindsey K. Self, and","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Natalie D. Davis, for appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"FRANTZ WARD LLP, Ryan T. Smith, Angela D. Lydon,","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"and Katherine E. McLaughlin, for appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Plaintiffs-appellants Perri Kushan and Linda Novak-Eedy","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"(collectively, “appellants”) appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"motion of defendants-appellees King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehabilitation","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"LLC, Outcome Healthcare LLC, Diane Liliestedt, and Tara Miller (collectively,","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"“appellees”) to stay the underlying proceedings pending arbitration. After a","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"I. Facts and Procedural History","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Appellants were employed as dietitians at a long-term care facility","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"located in Beachwood, Ohio. Kushan began her employment at the facility in July","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"1989, and Novak-Eedy began her employment in May 1990. Both appellants were","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"employed at the facility for more than three decades, originally working for Menorah","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Park.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"In 2023, defendant-appellee Outcome Healthcare LLC (“Outcome”)","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"became the owner and operator of the facility, and the facility was renamed King","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"David Post Acute Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC (“King David”). Appellants","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"continued their employment under the new ownership. Defendant-appellee Diane","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"Liliestedt (“Liliestedt”) and defendant-appellee Tara Miller (“Miller”) were","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"appellants’ supervisors during the relevant time period.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"On or about December 13, 2023, representatives from Outcome","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"informed current employees at the facility that each employee was required to","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"execute a series of agreements and acknowledgements (the “onboarding","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"documents”) as a condition of continued employment. The onboarding documents","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"were transmitted to employees through an electronic portal called HostedTime.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"Employees received an email from HostedTime with instructions on how to create","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"an account on the portal in order to access and sign the onboarding documents.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"The onboarding documents included a USCIS Form I-9, an IRS Form","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"W-4, a Non-Union PTO Plan Acknowledgement, an IRS Form 8850, a Time Clock","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Procedures Acknowledgement, a Confidentiality and HIPAA Acknowledgement, a","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"Confidentiality in the Workplace and Resident Information Agreement, a Release","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"for Criminal History Records, a Drug-Free Workplace Policy Agreement, and a","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Mutual Arbitration Agreement (the “Arbitration Agreement”). The Arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Agreement was the final document presented to employees through the HostedTime","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"portal.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"The Arbitration Agreement was a four-page document between the","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"employee and Healthcare Payroll KD, a special purpose limited liability company","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"that King David used for its payroll services. The Arbitration Agreement provided","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"that the parties would arbitrate “any and all claims” arising out of or related to the","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"employment relationship, including “any claim of any kind . . . arising from or","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"relating to an alleged violation of Federal or State employment law of any kind.” The","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"Arbitration Agreement further provided that, by signing, the employee was","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"relinquishing the right to file a lawsuit in any court and the right to a jury trial.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"The Arbitration Agreement contained a one-year contractual","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"limitations period that stated: “Any request for arbitration of a dispute must be","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"requested and submitted to the arbitrator within one (1) year of the date on which","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"the event giving rise to the dispute occurred. The failure to submit a request for","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"Arbitration within such one (1) year period shall operate as a bar to any subsequent","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"requests for arbitration, or for any claim for relief or remedy, or to any action or legal","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"proceeding of any kind or nature, and the parties will be forever barred from","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"arbitrating or litigating a resolution to any such dispute.” The Arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Agreement also contained a 30-day rescission provision permitting an employee to","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"rescind the agreement by notifying the facility in writing. The agreement specifically","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"states: “Employee or, in the event of Employee’s incapacity, Employee’s authorized","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"representative have the right to rescind this arbitration agreement by notifying the","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"Facility in writing within thirty (30) days of the employment date.” Arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"Agreement, Section I.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"According to appellants, the HostedTime portal prompted each","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"employee to sign each onboarding document immediately upon its display and did","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"not permit the user to move forward without signing the preceding document.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Appellants averred that they were not given an opportunity to negotiate any part of","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"the Arbitration Agreement, that the portal did not permit users to modify or rescind","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"a signature once entered, and that the portal did not prompt or permit users to view,","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"download, or print the documents. Appellants further averred that once they","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"submitted the signed onboarding documents, they no longer had access to those","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"documents and did not receive an email confirmation or receipt. Appellants stated","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"that Novak-Eedy requested copies of the onboarding documents and that her","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"request was not fulfilled. Appellees, by contrast, submitted the affidavit of Maggie","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Rodriguez, King David’s current human resources director, who stated that","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"employees could access, download, and print the onboarding documents through","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"HostedTime at any time and that Kushan logged into HostedTime numerous times","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"between June 24, 2024, and August 30, 2024.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Appellants’ employment was terminated on September 9, 2024. Both","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"appellants were women over the age of forty at the time of their terminations.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"Kushan filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Commission on September 27, 2024, and Novak-Eedy filed a similar charge on","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"October 3, 2024. On October 9, 2024, counsel for appellants notified appellees that","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"appellants had retained legal counsel, had filed charges with the Ohio Civil Rights","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Commission, and intended to pursue legal action. Between October 9, 2024, and","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"January 21, 2025, appellees did not submit the dispute to arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"On January 21, 2025, appellants filed their complaint in the trial","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"court. The complaint asserted three counts: age discrimination in violation of","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"R.C. 4112.02 (Count 1); aiding and abetting age discrimination in violation of","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"R.C. 4112.02(J) (Count 2); and retaliation in violation of R.C. 3721.24 (Count 3).","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"Appellees’ counsel also represented the defendants in a separate but","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"related action filed by Ilona Yormick (“Yormick”), a former coworker of appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"who was represented by the same counsel as appellants. Yormick v. King David","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-24-108123, was litigated in","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"tandem with the matter underlying this appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"On February 24, 2025, King David, Liliestedt, and Miller filed an","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"answer to the complaint. The answer asserted 38 affirmative defenses, none of","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"which referenced arbitration or an agreement to arbitrate. On the same date,","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Outcome filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"Civ.R. 12(B)(2). Outcome’s motion to dismiss did not assert any right to arbitrate","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"and did not reference the Arbitration Agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"On March 10, 2025, appellants served their first set of discovery","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"requests on appellees. Interrogatory No. 2 requested identification of all individuals","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"known to be in possession of “[o]nboarding agreements between Plaintiffs and","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"Outcome executed in or around December 2023.” Request for Admission No. 3","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"asked appellees to admit whether they “asked Menorah Park/King David employees","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"to sign onboarding agreements with Outcome in or around December 2023.”","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"On March 13, 2025, Outcome filed the affidavit of H. Jason Black","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"(“Black”), the Administrator for King David, as an exhibit to its reply in support of","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"the motion to dismiss in the related Yormick action. Outcome filed the same","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"affidavit in the present matter on March 18, 2025, as exhibit No. 4 to its reply in","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"support of the motion to dismiss. The Black affidavit attached, as Exhibit A, copies","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"of the onboarding documents executed by Yormick, including the Arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Agreement signed by Yormick. On March 18, 2025, appellants supplemented their","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"discovery requests to seek unredacted copies of the onboarding documents attached","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"to the Black affidavit, including any agreements signed by appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"On April 3, 2025, appellees’ former counsel requested a 28-day","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"extension to respond to appellants’ initial discovery requests. On or about April 9,","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"2025, appellees retained new counsel. New counsel entered a notice of substitution","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"on April 18, 2025. On April 30, 2025, Outcome filed its answer in the related","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"Yormick action. Outcome’s answer in Yormick did not assert arbitration as an","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"affirmative defense, although the Arbitration Agreement had been filed on the","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"record in that case approximately six weeks earlier.","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"On May 1, 2025, additional counsel for appellees entered a notice of","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"appearance in the present matter. On May 5, 2025, appellees served their responses","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"to appellants’ first set of discovery requests. In response to Interrogatory No. 2,","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"appellees objected on the basis that the interrogatory sought information that was","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"“neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"evidence as to any of the claims or defenses in this lawsuit.” Appellees raised the","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"same objection in response to Request for Admission No. 3. Appellees did not","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"produce the onboarding documents at that time.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"On May 27, 2025, appellants served their second set of discovery","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"requests on appellees. Between May 22, 2025, and July 16, 2025, counsel for the","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"parties corresponded regularly regarding discovery and depositions. On July 14,","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"2025, appellants’ counsel served notices of depositions.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"On July 16, 2025, appellees’ counsel notified appellants’ counsel that","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"appellees had “very recently discovered arbitration agreements signed by","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"Ms. Yormick, Ms. Kushan, and Ms. Novak-Eedy.” Appellees then provided copies","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"of the Arbitration Agreements to appellants. On July 21, 2025, approximately six","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"months after the filing of the complaint and five months after Outcome filed its","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"motion to dismiss, appellees filed a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"pursuant to R.C. 2711.02. On the same date, appellees filed a separate motion to","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion to stay pending arbitration. Appellees","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"represented in their motion that counsel had first learned of the applicability of the","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Arbitration Agreement on July 11, 2025, while reviewing appellants’ personnel and","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"onboarding documents.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"On August 4, 2025, appellants filed an unopposed motion for a seven-","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"day extension of time to file their oppositions On August 11, 2025, appellants filed","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"their brief in opposition to the motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"their brief in opposition to the motion to stay discovery. Appellants argued that the","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Arbitration Agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, that","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"appellees had waived any right to arbitration through their litigation conduct, and","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"that appellees had failed to timely initiate arbitration as required under the","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"Arbitration Agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"On August 15, 2025, the trial court set a case-management conference","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"for August 22, 2025, by telephone. The parties appeared at the August 22, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"case-management conference and orally briefed the trial court on the issues raised","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"in the motion to stay. On August 25, 2025, appellees filed their reply in support of","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"the motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and their reply in support of the","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"motion to stay discovery. The trial court set an additional case-management","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"conference for September 4, 2025.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"On September 2, 2025, appellants filed a motion for leave to file a","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"surreply in opposition to appellees’ motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration,","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"with the proposed surreply attached.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"On September 4, 2025, the trial court entered a journal entry","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"referring the case to arbitration pursuant to Loc.R. 21 of the Court of Common Pleas","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"of Cuyahoga County, General Division. The journal entry directed that the case be","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"arbitrated no later than January 28, 2026.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"On September 19, 2025, appellees filed an unopposed motion for","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"clarification of docket entry, requesting that the trial court vacate and reissue its","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"September 4, 2025 order to reflect that the case was being referred to arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"under the parties’ Arbitration Agreement pursuant to R.C. 2711.03(A), rather than","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"to court-administered arbitration under Loc.R. 21.","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"On September 25, 2025, the trial court in the related Yormick action","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"denied the substantially identical motion to stay pending arbitration filed by","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"appellees in that case.1 On September 30, 2025, the trial court in the present matter","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"vacated its September 4, 2025 arbitration referral. That same day, appellants filed","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"a motion for reconsideration and notice of supplemental authority, alerting the trial","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"court to the contrary ruling in Yormick and raising the issue of the scope of the","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Arbitration Agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"On October 1, 2025, the trial court entered a journal entry granting","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"appellees’ motion to stay pending arbitration. The journal entry provided that the","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"case was “stayed and is to be arbitrated pursuant to the Parties’ arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"agreement and not through the Court’s DR Department.” The trial court did not","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"1 Yormick filed an appeal with this court, and in Yormick v. King David Post Acute","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"Nursing & Rehab. LLC, 2026-Ohio-1776, ¶ 1 (8th Dist.), this court affirmed the trial","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"court’s denial of the motion to stay pending arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"expressly rule on appellants’ motion for reconsideration and notice of supplemental","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"authority.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"On October 6, 2025, appellants timely filed their notice of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"from the October 1, 2025 journal entry pursuant to R.C. 2711.02(C). Appellants raise","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"three assignments of error for review.","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"1. The trial court committed reversible error when it granted","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"defendant-appellees’ motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"pursuant to the arbitration agreement which is: (1) substantively","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"unconscionable; and (2) procedurally unconscionable;","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"2. The trial court committed reversible error when it referred the","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"parties to arbitration, despite defendant-appellees’ waiver of the right","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"to arbitration; and","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"3. The trial court committed reversible error when it compelled the","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"parties to arbitrate claims outside the scope of the arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"II. Arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"A. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"The question of whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable,","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"including whether the agreement is unconscionable, presents a mixed question of","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"law and fact. Wilson v. Lawrence, 2017-Ohio-1410, ¶ 9. The factual findings of the","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"trial court are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, while the legal conclusion as to","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"whether the contract is enforceable is reviewed de novo. Arnold v. Burger King,","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"2015-Ohio-4485, ¶ 47 (8th Dist.); DeVito v. Autos Direct Online, Inc., 2015-Ohio-","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"3336, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration under an abuse-of-discretion","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"standard. However, the question of whether a particular dispute falls within the","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"scope of an arbitration agreement, and the related question of who decides that","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"issue, the court or the arbitrator, presents a question of contract interpretation that","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"this court reviews de novo. Vining v. Logan Clutch Corp., 2020-Ohio-675, ¶ 9 (8th","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"Dist.); Blue Technicians Smart Solutions, L.L.C. v. Ohio Collaborative Learning","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Solutions, Inc., 2020-Ohio-806, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"Ohio public policy favors the enforcement of arbitration agreements.","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"R.C. 2711.02(B); Epps v. State Farm Auto. Ins., 2022-Ohio-4084, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"However, an arbitration provision, like any contract clause, will not be enforced if it","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"is found to be unconscionable. Arnold at ¶ 49. The party seeking to invalidate an","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"arbitration agreement on the ground of unconscionability bears the burden of","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"demonstrating that the agreement is both procedurally and substantively","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"unconscionable. Arnold at ¶ 50; DeVito at ¶ 27. Both elements must be present; a","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"deficiency in only one prong is fatal to the challenge. Arnold at ¶ 50.","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"B. Law and Analysis","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"In their first assignment of error, appellants argue that the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"committed reversible error in granting the motion to stay proceedings pending","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"arbitration because the Arbitration Agreement was both substantively and","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"procedurally unconscionable.","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Substantive unconscionability concerns the terms of the agreement","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"itself and whether those terms are commercially reasonable, while procedural","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"unconscionability concerns the circumstances surrounding the formation of the","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"agreement, including factors bearing on the parties’ relative bargaining position.","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"Arnold, 2015-Ohio-4485, at ¶ 51 (8th Dist.). We address each prong in turn.","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"Appellants contend that the Arbitration Agreement is substantively","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"unconscionable on three grounds: (1) the fee-splitting provision imposes prohibitive","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"costs; (2) the one-year contractual limitations period is unreasonably short and","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"effectively waives statutory remedies under R.C. Ch. 4112 and R.C. 3721.24; and (3)","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"the agreement deprives them of substantive rights available in a judicial forum. We","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"find these arguments unpersuasive.","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"The Arbitration Agreement at issue is a stand-alone, four-page","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"document captioned as a “Mutual Arbitration Agreement” between the employee","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"and Healthcare Payroll KD. The agreement covers “any and all claims” arising from","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"or relating to employment, expressly including claims of discrimination under","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"federal or state law. The agreement is mutual: both the employee and the employer","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"are bound to arbitrate covered disputes. It contains an express recommendation","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"that the employee consult with legal counsel before signing, and it provides a 30-day","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"rescission period during which the employee may withdraw from the agreement","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"without consequence.","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"With respect to the fee-splitting provision, appellants assert that the","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"requirement to share arbitration costs renders vindication of their statutory rights","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"prohibitively expensive. However, appellants have offered no concrete evidence of","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"what those costs would actually be in their specific case. Generalized assertions","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"about the potential cost of arbitration, unsupported by record evidence","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"demonstrating that the costs would in fact be prohibitive for these particular","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"claimants, are insufficient to establish substantive unconscionability. DeVito, 2015-","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"Ohio-3336, at ¶ 35 (8th Dist.) (party challenging arbitration on cost grounds must","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"offer specific evidence of prohibitive expense, not speculation).","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"As to the one-year limitations period, Ohio courts have repeatedly","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"upheld contractually shortened limitations periods in arbitration agreements as","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"commercially reasonable, provided the period affords a meaningful opportunity to","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"assert the claim. The one-year period in this agreement begins to run from “the date","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"on which the event giving rise to the dispute occurred” and applies symmetrically to","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"both parties. A one-year window is not so short as to deprive an employee of a","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"reasonable opportunity to discover, investigate, and assert an employment claim.","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"Indeed, appellants here filed charges with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission within","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"weeks of their September 9, 2024 terminations and filed their complaint in the court","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"of common pleas on January 21, 2025, well within one year. The contractual","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"limitations period did not, on this record, foreclose appellants from asserting their","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"claims; their inability to proceed in court arose not from the limitations clause but","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"from the agreement’s referral of those claims to a different forum.","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"Appellants’ contention that the agreement deprives them of","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"substantive rights conflates the forum in which a claim is heard with the substantive","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"law applied to it. An arbitration agreement does not extinguish statutory claims; it","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"merely provides an alternative forum for their resolution. The agreement here","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"expressly covers, rather than waives, statutory employment claims, and nothing in","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"its terms purports to limit the substantive remedies available under R.C. Ch. 4112 or","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"R.C. 3721.24.","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"Appellants have not carried their burden of demonstrating that the","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"agreement is substantively unconscionable. Because both prongs of the","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"unconscionability test must be satisfied, this conclusion alone is dispositive of the","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"assignment of error. Arnold, 2015-Ohio-4485, at ¶ 50 (8th Dist.). Nevertheless, in","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"the interest of completeness, we address the procedural prong.","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"Procedural unconscionability focuses on the circumstances","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"surrounding the contracting parties’ bargaining, including each party’s age,","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"education, intelligence, business acumen, and experience; who drafted the contract;","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"whether alterations in the printed terms were possible; and whether there were","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"alternative sources of supply for the goods or services in question. Arnold, 2015-","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"Ohio-4485, at ¶ 52 (8th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"Appellants argue that the agreement was procedurally","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"unconscionable because: (1) the agreement was presented through the HostedTime","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"online portal as part of a series of onboarding documents that had to be signed","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"sequentially; (2) the portal did not afford adequate time to review the documents;","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"(3) employees could not negotiate any term; (4) employees could not download or","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"print the documents and lost access once submitted; and (5) the agreement was a","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"condition of continued employment.","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"While the manner of presentation, particularly through an electronic","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"portal that allegedly limited the ability to retain a copy of the executed document,","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"raises some concern, the record does not establish that the circumstances of","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"formation rose to the level of procedural unconscionability under Ohio law. Several","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"features of the transaction weigh decisively against appellants’ challenge.","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"First, the Arbitration Agreement was a stand-alone, four-page","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"document, separately captioned and distinct from the other onboarding materials.","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"It was not buried in fine print within a larger document. The agreement itself","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"expressly advised the employee to seek legal counsel before signing and","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"conspicuously notified the employee, in plain language, that signing meant","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"relinquishing the right to file a lawsuit and the right to a jury trial.","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"Second, and most significant, the agreement contained a 30-day","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"rescission period during which appellants could have withdrawn from the","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"agreement without any consequences to their employment. The presence of a","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"meaningful rescission right substantially undermines a claim that the agreement","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"was the product of oppression or unfair surprise. The agreement specifically states:","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"“Employee or, in the event of Employee’s incapacity, Employee’s authorized","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"representative have the right to rescind this arbitration agreement by notifying the","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"Facility in writing within thirty (30) days of the employment date.” Arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"Agreement, Section I. Appellants had a full month after signing to consult counsel,","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"reflect on the terms, and exercise their unilateral right to opt out. They did not do","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"so. A party who is given, but declines to exercise, the right to withdraw from an","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"arbitration agreement without penalty cannot persuasively argue that the","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"agreement was procedurally unconscionable on the grounds that they had no","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"meaningful choice. Arnold, 2015-Ohio-4485, at ¶ 77 (8th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"Third, appellants are educated adult professionals with decades of","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"work experience. Both worked as dietitians and had been employed on the King","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"David campus for more than two decades at the time the agreement was presented.","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"Although the agreement was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis as a condition of","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"continued employment, that fact alone does not establish procedural","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"unconscionability. Ohio courts have consistently held that the adhesive nature of an","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"employment-related arbitration agreement, standing alone, is not sufficient to","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"render it unconscionable. Arnold at ¶ 77.","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"Fourth, appellants’ assertion that they could not later access the","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"documents, while a legitimate concern about recordkeeping practices, does not bear","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"on the circumstances of formation. The relevant inquiry for procedural","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"unconscionability is what the parties knew, understood, and were able to do at the","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"time of contracting. At the time of signing, appellants were presented with the","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"agreement, were given the opportunity to read it, were advised to consult counsel,","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"and were afforded a 30-day window to rescind. Difficulties in obtaining copies of","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"the executed agreement after the fact, while perhaps relevant to other issues, do not","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"establish that the formation process itself was unconscionable.","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"On this record, appellants have not demonstrated that the agreement","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"was procedurally unconscionable.","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"Because appellants have failed to establish either substantive or","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"procedural unconscionability, and because both prongs are required, the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"did not err in determining that the Arbitration Agreement is enforceable and in","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"staying the proceedings pending arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"Therefore, appellants’ first assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"In their second assignment of error, appellants argued that the trial","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"court committed reversible error when it referred the parties to arbitration because","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"King David, Outcome, Liliestedt, and Miller waived any right to arbitrate by acting","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"inconsistently with that right.","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"A party may waive the right to arbitrate, like any other contractual","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"right. Blue Technologies, 2020-Ohio-806, at ¶ 25. To establish waiver, the party","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"opposing arbitration must demonstrate that (1) the party seeking arbitration knew","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"of an existing right to arbitrate, and (2) the party acted inconsistently with that right.","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"Id. at ¶ 26; Midland Funding, 2022-Ohio-4506, at ¶ 18.","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"In determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"finding of waiver, Ohio courts consider several factors, including: (1) whether the","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"party seeking arbitration invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing a","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"complaint, counterclaim, or third-party complaint without asking for a stay; (2) the","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"delay, if any, by the party seeking arbitration in requesting a stay or order compelling","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"arbitration; (3) the extent to which the party seeking arbitration participated in","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"litigation, including the status of discovery, dispositive motions, and the trial date;","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"and (4) any prejudice to the nonmoving party because of the moving party’s prior","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"inconsistent actions. Blue Technologies at ¶ 27; Midland Funding at ¶ 19.","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"Turning to the first prong of the waiver inquiry by the opposing party,","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"the record reflected that King David, and the affiliated appellees had actual","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"knowledge of the Arbitration Agreement well before they moved to stay proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"On March 13, 2025, in the companion Yormick matter, counsel for Outcome filed","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"the affidavit of H. Jason Black, which attached the onboarding documents executed","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"by Yormick, including the Arbitration Agreement at issue. The same affidavit and","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"exhibits were filed in this case on March 18, 2025, as an exhibit to Outcome’s reply","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"in support of its motion to dismiss. Appellees were the parties who placed the","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"Arbitration Agreement before the trial court. By that date at the latest, appellees","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"knew that an arbitration agreement existed in connection with the King David","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"onboarding process under which appellants were employed.","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"Although appellees represented to the trial court that current counsel","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"did not appreciate the applicability of arbitration until July 11, 2025, knowledge of a","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"corporate party is not measured solely by the awareness of successor counsel. The","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"Arbitration Agreement was drafted by, executed in favor of, and held within the","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"custody of appellees’ own onboarding system. Appellees’ new counsel entered an","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"appearance on April 18, 2025, and the existence of the Agreement was already a","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"matter of record by that time. The first prong of the waiver test was therefore","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"The closer question, and the one on which this assignment of error","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"turns, is whether appellees acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate. After","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"review of the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that they did not.","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"As to the first factor, appellees did not invoke the jurisdiction of the","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"trial court by filing a complaint, counterclaim, or third-party complaint. Appellants","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"initiated this litigation. King David, Liliestedt, and Miller filed an answer, and","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"Outcome filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(2) motion challenging personal jurisdiction. A motion","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"contesting the trial court’s power to adjudicate the dispute over a particular","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"defendant is a threshold defense and is not the kind of affirmative invocation of the","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"court’s merits jurisdiction that ordinarily supports a finding of waiver. See Blue","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"Technologies, 2020-Ohio-806, at ¶ 28-31. This factor weighed against waiver.","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"As to the second factor, appellees filed their motion to stay on July 21,","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"2025, approximately six months after the complaint was filed on January 21, 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"and approximately four months after the Arbitration Agreement appeared on the","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"docket in this case. Although a delay of this duration is not insignificant, this district","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"has recognized that delay alone, without a showing of meaningful participation in","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"the litigation or prejudice, does not establish waiver. Midland Funding, 2022-Ohio-","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"4506, at ¶ 24. The record further reflected that during a substantial portion of this","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"period, the case sat dormant because of a series of visiting-judge assignments. No","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"case-management conference occurred until August 22, 2025, after appellees had","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"already moved to stay. The delay factor, while not entirely neutral, did not, standing","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"alone, demonstrate conduct completely inconsistent with arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"As to the third factor, the extent of appellees’ participation in the","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"litigation, the record showed that appellees’ substantive engagement was limited.","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"The motion practice that occurred was confined to Outcome’s threshold personal","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"jurisdiction motion and routine answer Although appellants propounded two sets","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"of written discovery and noticed depositions, appellees did not propound any","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"discovery of their own, did not respond substantively to a significant portion of the","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"written discovery, did not take any depositions, did not file any dispositive motion","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"directed at the merits, and did not obtain a trial date or substantive case-","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"management order. See Blue Technologies, 2020-Ohio-806, at ¶ 32. Appellees did","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"serve responses to the first set of written discovery on May 5, 2025, but those","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"responses were largely tied to the pending jurisdictional dispute. On this record,","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"appellees did not litigate the merits of the case in a manner that this court has","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"previously found sufficient to constitute waiver.","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"The court acknowledged appellants’ contention that appellees’","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"discovery responses objecting to the production of onboarding documents as not","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"“relevant” to any “claims or defenses” reflected a strategic decision to forgo","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"arbitration. (Defs.’ May 5, 2025 Disc. Resp.) That argument has surface appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"However, objections lodged during pre-arbitration jurisdictional discovery, even","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"when imprecise, do not, without more, demonstrate the kind of affirmative, merits-","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"based litigation conduct that this court has required to support a finding of waiver.","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"Blue Technologies at ¶ 27.","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"As to the fourth factor, prejudice, appellants were required to","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"demonstrate concrete prejudice flowing from appellees’ delay or litigation conduct.","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"Midland Funding, 2022-Ohio-4506, at ¶ 25. The record did not establish such","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"prejudice. No depositions had been taken; no merits discovery had been completed;","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"no dispositive motions had been litigated; and no trial date had been set. Although","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"appellants understandably expended resources in propounding discovery and","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"litigating the personal jurisdiction motion, that work was largely tied to the","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"jurisdictional issue and to obtaining the onboarding documents themselves. The","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"expenditure of routine litigation costs, without more, does not amount to the degree","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"of prejudice required to overcome the strong presumption in favor of arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"Blue Technologies, 2020-Ohio-806, at ¶ 33.","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"Considering the totality of the circumstances under the four-factor","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"framework, the court could not conclude that appellees engaged in conduct","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"completely inconsistent with the right to arbitrate. Appellees did not invoke the","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"court’s jurisdiction by filing affirmative claims, did not engage in significant merits-","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"based motion practice, did not take or substantively respond to merits discovery, did","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"not obtain a trial date, and did not cause demonstrable prejudice to appellants","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"beyond the costs ordinarily incurred at the outset of any litigation. While appellees’","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"delay and their initial failure to plead arbitration as an affirmative defense gave the","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"court pause, those facts alone did not satisfy appellants’ heavy burden to","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"demonstrate waiver in the face of Ohio’s strong public policy favoring arbitration.","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"Midland Funding, 2022-Ohio-4506, at ¶ 17. Accordingly, the trial court did not err","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"in concluding that appellees did not waive their right to arbitrate.","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"Therefore, appellants’ second assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"In their third assignment of error, appellants argued that the trial","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"court committed reversible error when it compelled the parties to arbitrate claims","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"outside the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Specifically, appellants contended","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"that because appellees failed to “request and submit” a demand for arbitration to an","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"arbitrator within one year of the events giving rise to the dispute, the contractual","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"one-year limitations period set forth in Paragraph E of the Agreement extinguished","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"any right to arbitrate, placing appellants’ claims outside the scope of the Agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"The Arbitration Agreement signed by each appellant contains a one-","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"year contractual limitations provision, which states:","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"Any request for arbitration of a dispute must be requested and","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"submitted to the arbitrator within one (1) year of the date on which the","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"event giving rise to the dispute occurred. The failure to submit a","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"request for Arbitration within such one (1) year period shall operate as","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"a bar to any subsequent requests for arbitration, or for any claim for","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"relief or remedy, or to any action or legal proceeding of any kind or","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"nature, and the parties will be forever barred from arbitrating or","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"litigating a resolution to any such dispute.","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"Motion to Stay, July 21, 2025, Ex. 1-A at ¶ E.","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"Appellants were terminated on September 9, 2024. Appellees did not","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"file their motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration until July 21, 2025, and did","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"not submit a demand to any arbitrator at all before that filing. Appellants argued","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"that because more than one year passed between the events giving rise to the","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"dispute, namely their September 9, 2024 terminations, and any request to arbitrate,","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"the contractual one-year period had run, and appellees could no longer pull the","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"claims into arbitration. However, per the facts, it was nine months, not 12.","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"According to appellants, the consequence of that expiration was that the claims fell","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"outside the scope of the Agreement, and the trial court erred by referring them to","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"arbitration over appellants’ objection.","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"The threshold question, however, is not whether the one-year","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"provision was triggered or how it should be applied. The threshold question is who","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"decides that issue. On that point, Ohio law is settled. Once a court determines that","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the subject matter of","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"the dispute falls within the substantive scope of that agreement, procedural","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"questions that grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"presumptively for the arbitrator, not the court. This includes questions of","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"timeliness, compliance with conditions precedent, notice, and the application of","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"contractual limitations periods. Blue Techs. Smart Sols., L.L.C. at ¶ 17.","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"Appellants did not dispute, and could not credibly dispute, that the","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"substantive subject matter of their claims, namely age discrimination and retaliation","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"arising out of their employment and termination at King David, falls squarely within","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"the language of Paragraph C of the Agreement, which covers “any claim of","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"any kind . . . arising from or relating to an alleged violation of Federal or State","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"employment law of any kind, or any other cause or reason arising from employee’s","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"employment in the Facility.” Motion to Stay, July 21, 2025, Ex. 1-A at ¶ C.","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"The dispute about the one-year provision in Paragraph E is not a","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"dispute about whether the claims, by their nature, are the kind of claims the parties","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"agreed to arbitrate. It is a dispute about whether a particular procedural condition","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"within the arbitration framework, a contractual statute of limitations, was satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"That is the paradigmatic procedural question reserved for the","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"arbitrator. Whether a party “timely” invoked arbitration under a contractual","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"deadline, and what consequence flows from any delay, are matters that go to the","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"application of the agreement’s own internal timing rules, not to whether an","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"agreement to arbitrate exists or what categories of disputes it covers. Treating the","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"one-year clause as a scope question would invert the analysis and would convert","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"every contractual limitations provision into a judicial gateway issue, contrary to","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"Ohio’s strong policy in favor of allowing arbitrators to decide such procedural","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"questions. Crider v. GMRI, Inc., 2020-Ohio-3668, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"Appellants’ reading also produced an internally inconsistent result.","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"By its own terms, Paragraph E bars “any subsequent requests for arbitration, or for","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"any claim for relief or remedy, or to any action or legal proceeding of any kind or","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"nature,” and provides that “the parties will be forever barred from arbitrating or","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"litigating a resolution to any such dispute.” Motion to Stay, July 21, 2025, Ex. 1-A","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"at ¶ E. On appellants’ construction, the running of the one-year period would","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"simultaneously remove the claims from the scope of arbitration and free appellants","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"to litigate them in court. The text says the opposite The provision operates as a","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"contractual statute of limitations that bars both arbitration and litigation, not as a","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"gateway that returns time-barred claims to the courthouse. Whether and how that","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"bar applies to appellants’ particular claims is itself a question committed, in the first","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"instance, to the arbitrator. Blue Technicians Smart Solutions, L.L.C. at ¶ 17.","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"The trial court did not compel arbitration of claims “outside the","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"scope” of the Agreement. The trial court determined that the parties had a valid","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"agreement to arbitrate employment-related claims of the type appellants asserted","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"and properly left the procedural question of timeliness under Paragraph E to the","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"arbitrator. That ruling was consistent with Ohio’s strong policy favoring arbitration","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"and with the settled allocation of issues between courts and arbitrators. Crider at","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"¶ 14; Vining at ¶ 9.","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"Therefore, appellants’ third assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"Judgment affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"judgment into execution.","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"__________________________","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR","paragraph_id":"para_554"}],"word_count":6028,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"2770ec5d455978a246fa36bbd9fb6c699f834b1f4dc731cd75463d72d73eacee","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2026/2026-Ohio-2717.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-17T17:14:36.812+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","name":"Elliott v. Jose","decided":"2026-10-05","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05"},{"id":"us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","name":"State of Iowa v. Scott A. Belt","decided":"2026-10-02","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02"},{"id":"us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","name":"Matter of Garnet Health Med. Ctr. v. People","decided":"2026-09-30","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30"},{"id":"us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","name":"In re A.H.","decided":"2026-09-23","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23"},{"id":"us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","name":"Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0530","decided":"2026-09-17","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17"},{"id":"us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","name":"Sonic Drive-In, Keene, TX, LLC v. Leigh Anne Miller, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Matthew Davis","decided":"2026-09-17","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17"},{"id":"us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","name":"Lorie Jean Lisandrillo v. Renee Palozzi","decided":"2026-09-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16"},{"id":"us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","name":"Sujan v. UHS Corona","decided":"2026-09-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16"},{"id":"us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","name":"Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v. HHS","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","name":"Jenkins v. McLaughlin Body Co.","decided":"2026-09-03","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"2770ec5d455978a246fa36bbd9fb6c699f834b1f4dc731cd75463d72d73eacee","recomputed_sha256":"2770ec5d455978a246fa36bbd9fb6c699f834b1f4dc731cd75463d72d73eacee","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-03T14:02:08.808Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":0,"word_count":6028,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:dda266966e5e978afe6b25ee8a74ee51c2985e1a3892023f096e508c343be8a2","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T13:04:16","content_hash":"sha256:dda266966e5e978afe6b25ee8a74ee51c2985e1a3892023f096e508c343be8a2","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T15:02:10.469Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-d13510e102a489d7c716424ca4a82809","response_hash":"sha256:dda266966e5e978afe6b25ee8a74ee51c2985e1a3892023f096e508c343be8a2"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T14:02:11.054Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-115666-2026-07-16&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":29681}}