Court voids Blue Origin’s arbitration clause over four unconscionable elements

Stoker was terminated in October 2022 after raising complaints about the company’s safety practices. He alleged that his safety complaints were ignored because of his gender – that Blue Origin employees believed he should “man up.” In November 2023, he filed suit alleging retaliation, sexual/gender discrimination, sexual/gender harassment, wrongful termination, and several other employment claims. 

Blue Origin moved to compel arbitration. The trial court blocked the motion, and Blue Origin appealed. 

The appellate court affirmed, but it took a different path than the lower court. Rather than wading into the contested question of whether the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act applied to Stoker’s claims, the court went straight to the arbitration agreement itself and found it riddled with problems. 

The agreement covered far more than employment disputes. It applied to any and all claims between Stoker and the company, its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors or assigns, as well as their current and former officers, directors, employees, and agents. The court pointed out that under the agreement’s plain language, Stoker could have been forced into arbitration if he were injured in an automobile accident with a Blue Origin employee years after his employment ended, or if his house were damaged by debris from a Blue Origin rocket. The court was unimpressed by the company’s argument that the scope was narrower than it appeared, noting simply that all means all. 

The agreement also lacked mutuality. Claims that employers typically bring – trade secret violations, trademark infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of proprietary information or confidentiality obligations, and breach of non-solicitation agreements – were excluded from mandatory arbitration. Claims that employees typically bring – wrongful termination, wage disputes, discrimination, harassment, retaliation – were all funneled into it. The court found this created a one-sided system that favored the company.