Reported / Citable
Background
Artur Curyllo was employed by Yesway (doing business as BW Gas & Convenience Holdings, LLC). In April 2024, the company implemented a requirement that all employees sign a binding arbitration agreement. Curyllo signed the agreement on April 12, 2024, during his onboarding process. On April 23, 2024, Curyllo acknowledged receiving the same arbitration agreement through the company’s HR portal (UKG system). On March 4, 2026, Yesway filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The magistrate court initially sought clarification regarding whether a subsequent or revised arbitration agreement existed.
After supplemental briefing, Yesway established that the agreement signed on April 12, 2024, was identical to the agreement Curyllo acknowledged on April 23, 2024. Curyllo argued that unresolved questions about the legal significance of the rollout process and whether employees were merely acknowledging receipt versus manifesting assent warranted discovery before compelling arbitration.
The magistrate court recommended granting the Motion to Compel Arbitration. The court found that Curyllo and Yesway entered into a valid, binding arbitration agreement on April 12, 2024, and that the agreement encompasses the dispute in the present lawsuit. Applying the Federal Arbitration Act’s two-step framework, the court determined: (1) the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and (2) no federal or state policy renders the claims non-arbitrable.
The court rejected Curyllo’s arguments about procedural distinctions in the company-wide rollout, finding them insufficient to demonstrate that he did not validly, voluntarily, and with informed consent execute the agreement. The court noted the FAA establishes a presumption in favor of arbitration and that doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.
The case is to be STAYED pending completion of arbitration proceedings. The recommendation is subject to de novo review by the district judge within 14 days under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This decision reinforces the strong enforceability of arbitration agreements in employment relationships under the Federal Arbitration Act. Employers implementing company-wide arbitration policies may take comfort that courts will enforce valid arbitration agreements even when employees raise procedural objections to the rollout process, provided the agreement is properly executed and no overriding state or federal policy bars arbitration of the claims.
For employees, the decision illustrates that questions about whether an employer’s implementation procedures constituted mere acknowledgment versus manifestation of assent will not prevent enforcement of an agreement the employee signed, absent concrete evidence of procedural defects that undermine the validity of the agreement itself.