Second Language Responsibility
The 3rd Circuit court in Philadelphia recently ruled that a Spanish speaking individual is still responsible for any employment contracts they may sign, regardless whether they can read them or not. This particular case, Morales v. Sun Constructors Inc, judgement came down from 3rd Circuit Judge Michael A. Chagares which read the following:
"In the absence of fraud, the fact that an offeree cannot read, write, speak, or understand the English language is immaterial to whether an English-language agreement the offeree executes is enforceable," Chagares wrote in an opinion joined by 3rd Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell.
But if the company takes steps to ensure that their employees understand completely what they are signing, are they then still responsible, or does the liability fall on the individual hired to translate?
But in dissent, 3rd Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes said he would have upheld the lower court’s refusal to enforce the arbitration agreement because the evidence showed that Sun Contractors had assigned a bilingual worker to translate the agreement for Juan Morales, and the translator had failed to read the arbitration agreement.
"When Sun made the decision to insert itself between Morales and the contract, it created a situation where lack of mutual assent could, and did, occur," Fuentes wrote.
"Because I do not believe it was negligent or otherwise improper for Morales to rely upon the translation provided by Sun, and because Morales was not informed in the course of that translation that the agreement contained an arbitration clause, I agree with the district court that Morales did not ‘manifest an intention’ to be bound by the arbitration clause," Fuentes wrote.
Judge Charges however did not interpret the law as Judge Fuentes, and had this to say when he overturned the case:
"It was Morales’ obligation to ensure he understood the agreement before signing," Chagares wrote.
"Morales did not ask Hodge to translate the document word-for-word or ask to take the agreement home and have it translated, notwithstanding the fact that he testified that, in the past, he had paid someone to translate documents for him," Chagares wrote.
Chagares found that the appeal raised fundamental issues of contract law, and that Morales was effectively asking the court to carve out an unprecedented exception.
Under the "Restatement (Second) of Contracts," Chagares said, the "mutual assent" of the parties is necessary for the formation of a contract.
But Chagares also found that "while mutual assent is sometimes referred to as a ‘meeting of the minds,’ this phrase must not be construed too literally."
Instead, Chagares said, courts have consistently held that "acceptance is measured not by the parties’ subjective intent, but rather by their outward expressions of assent."
