I acknowledge that this handbook is neither a contract
of employment nor a legal document. I have received
the handbook, and I understand that it is my
responsibility to read and comply with the policies
contained in this handbook and any revisions made to
While agreements requiring arbitration of statutory claims, including discrimination claims brought under Title VII, are generally enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, Koveleskie v. SBC Capital Markets, Inc., 167 F.3d 361
, 362 (7th Cir. 1999), and courts should compel arbitration "unless . . . the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute," Kiefer Specialty Flooring, Inc. v. Tarkett, Inc., 174 F.3d 907
, 909 (7th Cir. 1999), I find that the EAF does not represent an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Defendant relies primarily on two cases to support its argument that the EAF represents an enforceable arbitration agreement: Bauer v. Morton's of Chicago, 2000 WL 149287 (N.D.Ill. 2000), and Medina v. Hispanic Broadcasting Corp., 2002 WL 389628 (N.D.Ill. 2002). However, in Bauer, the employee signed an Arbitration Policy Receipt, and in Medina, the Receipt and Acknowledgment of Employee Handbook form signed by the employee specifically stated that the employee agrees to submit all disputes to arbitration. In the present case, all the EAF indicates is that the employee received the Handbook, and one could read the language in the EAF as an agreement for the employee to read the Handbook sometime in the future. In other words, the EAF does not clearly indicate that the employee is acknowledging that he or she has even read the Handbook yet, and under the most basic of contract formation principles, it is untenable to believe that such a document could represent an enforceable agreement to abide by something that the signer has not even read.