Court Orders Trial on Enforceability of Arbitration Clause in Security Guard's WARN Act Claims

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A New York federal district court ordered a trial to resolve factual disputes regarding the enforceability of an arbitration clause in a security guard's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and New York WARN Act claims against Mulligan Security and Universal Protection Service. The court found genuine issues of material fact about whether the parties mutually assented to the arbitration provision when the plaintiff signed an offer letter for a recruiter position but actually worked as a security guard.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles over the enforceability of arbitration clauses, particularly in employment contracts where there may be disputes over the scope and terms of the agreement. The outcome could set an important precedent for how courts evaluate the mutual assent required for valid arbitration provisions.

The details

The security guard, who was not named in the ruling, signed an offer letter for a recruiter position that included an arbitration clause. However, she was actually employed as a security guard. The court found there were factual disputes over whether the parties mutually agreed to the arbitration provision, given the discrepancy between the position she was offered and the one she actually held.

• The case was decided on March 4, 2026.

What’s next

The judge in the case will hold a trial to determine whether the arbitration clause is enforceable against the security guard's WARN Act claims.