A 30-day opt-out saved this employer's onboarding arbitration agreement
An Ohio appeals court upheld an arbitration agreement a nursing home built into onboarding, pushing two workers' employment claims out of court.
On July 16, 2026, Ohio's Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court order sending the dispute to arbitration, over the employees' objections.
The case involved two dietitians at a long-term care facility in Beachwood, Ohio, each with more than 30 years on the job. When a new operator, Outcome Healthcare, took over in 2023 and renamed the site King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehabilitation, staff were told to sign a stack of onboarding documents through an online portal to keep working. The last item was a four-page mutual arbitration agreement.
Both women were over 40 when they lost their jobs in September 2024. They took their claims to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, then to court, alleging age discrimination and retaliation. The employer waited about six months to seek arbitration - and an early filing listed 38 defenses, none mentioning the clause.
The employees called the agreement unconscionable - so unfair in its terms or formation that a court should not enforce it. They said the portal made them sign document after document with no room to negotiate, and that they could not later download or print what they signed.
The court disagreed. What mattered most, the judges wrote, was a 30-day window that let any employee cancel the arbitration agreement with no effect on their job. That built-in escape hatch made it hard to argue the deal was forced or a surprise. The agreement also stood on its own, warned plainly that signing meant giving up court and jury rights, and urged employees to consult a lawyer first.
The six-month delay did not amount to a waiver, the court added, because the employer never filed its own claims, took depositions, or fought the merits, and the workers could not point to real harm. As for the agreement's one-year filing deadline, the court said that was the arbitrator's call, not the judge's.
A companion case brought by a former coworker went the other way: the trial court refused arbitration, and the same appeals court agreed. These rulings hinge on the specific record.
The age discrimination and retaliation allegations have not been decided. The court ruled only on where the dispute will be heard.
