LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Share this page RSS


Kansas Law Blog Legal updates, news, and commentary from the attorneys of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC

Court Compels Arbitration where Employer's Right to Modify Terms is not "Unfettered"

November 30, 2021 | Kara Stubbs and Nicholas Ruble

A number of recent court decisions have invalidated employment arbitration agreements where the employer reserves the right to modify terms. Courts have increasingly held that modification rights make the employer’s promise to arbitrate illusory, and thus, the agreement to arbitrate lacks consideration. Bucking this trend, however, the District of Kansas, in an opinion by Judge Toby Crouse, recently affirmed that an employment arbitration agreement which does not give the employer “unfettered” authority to modify its terms is supported by valid consideration and is enforceable. The Court also held that an arbitration agreement which incorporates AAA delegation rules is a “clear and unmistakable” delegation, giving the arbitrator the authority to rule on his or her own jurisdiction and issues of arbitrability.

The case is Braden v. Optum RX, Inc., in which Baker Sterchi is serving as local counsel for the defendants. Braden sued her former employer and other entities, including UnitedHealth Group (“UHG”), for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, because when Braden began her employment with UHG, she signed an arbitration agreement that was presented to her as a condition of employment. The Agreement covers most arbitrable employment disputes, including disputes arising under the FMLA and ADA. Importantly, the employer reserved “the right to amend, modify, or terminate the Policy effective on January 1 of any year after providing at least 30 days’ notice” to employees on the company intranet. The agreement incorporated the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Employment Dispute Resolution Rules, including Section 6 of the AAA Rules which states that “the arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” Finally, the agreement also states “continuation of employment with UnitedHealth Group is deemed to be acceptance of this Policy.”

Braden worked for UHG for six years. Toward the end of her employment, a medical condition allegedly caused Braden to exhaust her FMLA leave, and her continued absences were counted as unexcused under UHG’s attendance policy. UHG eventually terminated Braden’s employment for accruing too many unexcused absences.

Braden opposed UHG’s motion to compel arbitration, claiming that the agreement lacked consideration based on the UHG’s ability to modify its terms and challenging the agreement’s delegation provision. She argued that UHG’s promise to arbitrate was illusory because UHG reserved the right to modify or terminate the Agreement. Braden cited cases from several district courts in other jurisdictions (relying heavily on a case from Hawaii) which held that the UHG arbitration provision at issue lacked consideration because UGH’s promise to arbitrate was illusory. As a result, Braden claimed, no valid agreement was ever formed.

The Court granted UHG’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court explained that under Kansas law, if a modification clause provides the employer the “unfettered” right to modify or revoke its promise to arbitrate, then the promise is illusory. However, if the right to modify is “meaningfully limited,” then a promise to arbitrate is not illusory. Additionally, under Kansas law, an arbitration agreement does not require mutuality of obligation between the employer and employee. Rather, a contract is formed as long as both parties retain some valid consideration.

The Court held that UHG’s right to amend the policy is not “unfettered” because UHG was required to provide at least 30 days’ advanced notice and could only modify or terminate the Agreement effective January 1 of the year following notice. As a result of this effective date, UHG was prohibited from immediately terminating the agreement, which could have the effect of cutting off existing claims.

The Court also distinguished the cited cases from Hawaii, pointing out that under substantive law, Hawaii requires “mutuality of obligation” in bilateral contacts. The Court found that because Braden and UHG both promised to submit their grievances to arbitration, there was valid consideration on both sides.

Next, Braden challenged the Agreement’s delegation provision. Under Kansas law, a delegation provision is only valid where there is “clear and unmistakable evidence” of the parties’ intent to delegate to the arbitrator threshold issues of formation, enforceability, and other issues of arbitrability. Rather than separately attacking the delegation provision, Braden argued that because the Agreement as a whole was illusory, so was the delegation provision. Relying on Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court held that the parties had expressly incorporated AAA rules, which constitute “clear and unmistakable evidence” of an agreement to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.

Finally, Braden argued the rules limiting discovery were unconscionable. The Court found that because the delegation provision was valid, the Court’s role was limited to determining whether a contract was formed. Therefore issues such as unconscionability are left to the arbitrator.

In conclusion, in Kansas, so long as meaningful limits are placed on an employer’s ability to modify an arbitration agreement, courts will compel arbitration. From Braden, and the cases cited therein, drafters should ensure that the modification provisions include, at a minimum:

  • ample notice to employees that changes to the agreement are forthcoming;
  • a date certain on which changes will become effective; and
  • a statement that modification or termination of the agreement will not affect claims already submitted to arbitration.

UPDATE: Kansas Issues Updated Executive Order Prohibiting Foreclosures and Evictions

March 25, 2020 | Noemi Donovan and Megan Stumph-Turner

As we previously reported, last week, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly issued Executive Order 20-06 prohibiting evictions, foreclosures and any related judicial proceedings in the State of Kansas through May 1, 2020. Now, Governor Kelly has issued Executive Order 20-10, which amends and supersedes the previous order and provides additional clarification on certain points.

First, the new order expressly states that pending foreclosures and evictions are not prohibited by the order. This was implicit in the first order but is now clearly stated.

Second, the new order restricts the foreclosure moratorium to financial institutions foreclosing on single-family residences, where the default is caused by financial hardship relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. So, if the default under the terms of the mortgage occurred before March, 2020, a financial institution likely still may proceed with foreclosure. The new order does, however, purport to place a new pleading burden on foreclosing entities, during the effective period, to establish that the default was not caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new order clarifies that the eviction moratorium applies to any landlord, whether it is an individual, entity, financial institution, nursing or long-term care facility, or other entity. But again, the moratorium only applies where the financial hardship leading up to the eviction was substantially caused by hardship relating to the coronavirus.

Excepted from the new order are foreclosures initiated by the United States government. The new order also encourages, but does not require, lenders and landlords to try to work out “payment plans or other agreements” to address defaults caused by COVID-19.

Baker Sterchi will continue to monitor Kansas State policy concerning evictions and foreclosures and will provide updates as they are received.

Kansas Temporarily Prohibits Foreclosures and Evictions

March 20, 2020 | Noemi Donovan and Megan Stumph-Turner

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly issued Executive Order 20-06 on March 17, 2020, prohibiting evictions, foreclosures and any related judicial proceedings in the State of Kansas through May 1, 2020.

Specifically, Executive Order 20-06 directs and orders “all financial institutions operating in Kansas to temporarily suspend the initiation of any mortgage foreclosure efforts or judicial proceedings and any commercial or residential eviction efforts or judicial proceedings until May 1, 2020.”

While this prohibitive language could arguably be read to only apply to financial institutions, Baker Sterchi has confirmed with the Governor’s Office that it intends for the prohibition to apply to any landlord, whether a financial institution, other entity, or even individuals. This executive intent is further reflected in the recitals that precede the Executive Order:

WHEREAS, the adverse economic impacts of COVID-19 include the potential for Kansans to miss mortgage or rent payments as a result of lost wages and now is not the time for creditors or landlords to initiate foreclosure or eviction proceedings; and

WHEREAS, this Administration will do whatever it can to assist Kansans in these challenging times, and that includes allowing Kansans to retain their homes and businesses to avoid immediate danger to their health, safety, and welfare.

Accordingly, unless otherwise directed, all landlords in Kansas should refrain from instituting foreclosure or eviction proceedings until May 1, 2020.

While new foreclosure and eviction proceedings are prohibited at this time, it is important to note that Executive Order 20-06 does not suspend any obligation to pay rent. So, tenants are advised to continue paying rent unless they have a written agreement with their landlords to suspend or forbear rent during this time. Moreover, the Executive Order does not impact judicial foreclosure and eviction proceedings that were commenced prior to entry of the Executive Order. Parties to pending eviction or foreclosure proceedings should monitor the policies and dockets of the courts in their respective counties in order to determine the status of each case.

Baker Sterchi will continue to monitor Kansas State policy concerning evictions and foreclosures and will provide updates as they are received.

About Kansas Law Blog

Baker Sterchi's Kansas Law Blog examines significant developments, trends and changes in Kansas law on a broad range of topics that are of interest to Kansas practitioners and to businesses evaluating risks under Kansas law or managing litigation subject to Kansas law. Learn more about the editor, Bryan Mouber.


The Kansas Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.


Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Kansas Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Kansas Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.


For Important Legal Updates and Resources on the Coronavirus Click Here.