| Insights | Blog

Continuing a trend, Mississippi Supreme Court refuses to enforce broadly worded arbitration clause

Dollar General reported its employee Rebecca Keyes to the police for embezzlement, causing her to be arrested.  Keyes later sued Dollar General under a number of legal theories, including malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The trial court ordered arbitration for all of her claims, but the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed for all but one claim.  The Court found that disputes over the alleged embezzlement and the fraudulent conversion of property from one’s employer, were not covered under an arbitration provision which defined “covered claims” as those “arising out of your employment with Dollar General.”  This decision is but the latest by the Mississippi Supreme Court, one of which we previously wrote about here, refusing to enforce broadly worded arbitration clauses for certain types of claims.  These cases are troubling for the financial services industry in that plaintiffs may be able to avoid even very broadly worded arbitration clauses through inflammatory allegations or in cases where there is alleged criminal conduct.  The case was styled Rebecca Keyes v. Dollar General Corporation,  No. 2017-IA-00010-SCT.