ADR and Mediation

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing instant complaint alleging that defendant-employer failed to pay plaintiff-employee relocation costs as promised where parties had entered into "Dispute Resolution Process" that required both parties to arbitrate "employment-related" disputes. Ct. rejected plaintiff's claim that arbitration clause covered only issues contained in separate employment contract. Ct. also rejected defendant's request for sanctions, even though it deemed instant appeal frivolous, where defendant had not made said request in separate motion, as required under Fed. R. App. P. 38.

In class action alleging violations of Ill. Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, as well as breach of contract arising out of contention that defendant rendered plaintiff's GSM phone and equipment useless and refused to honor features and prices stemming from agreement between plaintiff and defendant's predecessor, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration, even though applicable arbitration clause was not contained in predecessor's agreement, but was contained in invoice issued to plaintiff by defendant. Language of instant arbitration clause was sufficiently broad to encompass instant dispute, where clause applied to any of defendant's services and equipment, and where instant lawsuit was predicated on defendant's (as opposed to predecessor's) actions in rendering his GSM phone inoperable. Moreover, arbitrator, as opposed to court, must decide whether arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable.