ÿWPCø* iÛ,›FÛvò ´Í b UF‰ nÏ Ï ‘=Î Öýåüâ êÞ"Þ"ÝÈ$È$È$È$ B¥)¥)¥)¥)¥)¥)¥)¥)¥)NÂ)^Ä)Ä)UF"*UFh*UB®*bð*˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ04X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman (d:2Æ;$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€35Œ3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóómailto:[NDHM.Broadcaster@GS-NS.Com]"«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ}·2s 6xª2(y File3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT ªÝ ƒÆ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3- 3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDuring€the€times€relevant€to€this€case,€the€plaintiff'sÐ ° Ðdirect€employer€was€General€Dynamics€C4€Systems,€a€business€unit€ofÐ †Ö ÐGeneral€Dynamics€Government€Systems€Corporation.€€General€DynamicsÐ \¬ ÐC4€Systems€has€since€reorganized€as€a€separate€corporation.€€TheseÐ 2‚ Ðorganizational€minutiae€need€not€concern€us,€so€we€use€theÐ X Ðappellation€"General€Dynamics"€to€refer€collectively€to€bothÐ Þ. Ðcompanies.- ù-.Courier New Regularhttp://csconnect.gd-cs.com/hr/dispute_resolution.htm," ‡Ý ƒÆ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3- 3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€plaintiff's€motion€did€not€specify€which€of€the€eightÐ ° Ðaffirmative€defenses€alleged€in€the€answer€it€sought€to€strike.€€InÐ †Ö Ðruling€on€the€motion,€the€district€court€treated€it€as€a€request€toÐ \¬ Ðstrike€the€third€affirmative€defense,€in€which€General€Dynamics€hadÐ 2‚ Ðasserted€that€"[Ô_Ôa]llÔ_Ô€counts€of€Plaintiff's€Complaint€are€subject€toÐ X Ðthe€dispute€resolution€procedure€of€[the]€Policy,€and€thereforeÐ Þ. Ðcannot€be€tried€by€this€Court."€€Neither€side€has€complained€aboutÐ ´  Ðthis€sensible€reading€of€the€record,€so€we€follow€the€districtÐ Š Ú Ðcourt's€lead.   Ý ƒÆ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3- 3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€dissenting€member€of€the€òòRosenbergóó€panel€questioned€theÐ ° Ðmajority's€conclusion€that€the€word€"appropriate"€demands€anÐ †Ö Ðinquiry€into€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€formation€of€anÐ \¬ Ðarbitration€agreement.€€òòRosenbergóó,€170€F.3d€at€22€(Wellford,€J.,Ð 2‚ Ðconcurring€in€part€and€dissenting€in€part).€€By€the€same€token,Ð X Ðother€courts€have€not€flocked€to€adopt€òòRosenbergóó's€reading€of€theÐ Þ.  Ðword€"appropriate."€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòHaskinsóó€v.€òòPrudential€Ins.€Co.óó,€230Ð ° ÐF.3d€231,€241€(6th€Cir.€2000)€(noting€that€"[Ô_Ôi]tÔ_Ô€is€not€clear€howÐ †Ö ÐCongress€intended€the€term€'appropriate'€to€apply€in€arbitrationÐ \¬ Ðcases"€and€therefore€finding€it€"unwise€to€require€a€heightenedÐ 2‚ Ðstandard€that€arbitration€be€'appropriate'€without€a€clearÐ X ÐCongressional€requirement€to€do€so,€especially€in€light€of€theÐ Þ. Ðstrong€federal€policy€favoring€arbitration");€òòÔ_ÔSeusÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòJohn€Ô_ÔNuveenÔ_ÔÐ ´  Ð&€Co.óó,€146€F.3d€175,€183€(3d€Cir.€1998)€(finding€it€"mostÐ Š Ú Ðreasonable"€to€read€the€clause€"where€appropriate€and€to€the€extentÐ ` ° Ðauthorized€by€law"€as€a€hortatory€provision€referring€to€the€FAA);Ð 6 †  Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGoldóó€v.€òòDeutsche€Aktiengesellschaftóó,€365€F.3d€144,€149€(2dÐ  \  ÐCir.€2004)€(declining€to€adopt€òòRosenbergóó's€interpretation€of€theÐ â 2  Ðterm€"appropriate"€in€the€context€of€an€arbitration€clauseÐ ¸  Ðcontained€in€a€securities€employment€registration€form).€€òòButóó€òòseeóó€òòÐ ŽÞ  ÐÔ_ÔHaskinsÔ_Ôóó,€230€F.3d€at€241€(Cole,€J.,€dissenting)€(commending€theÐ d´  ÐòòRosenbergóó€approach);€òòPrudential€Ins.€Co.óó€v.€òòLaióó,€42€F.3d€1299,€1305Ð :Š  Ð(9th€Cir.€1994)€(holding€that€the€word€"appropriate"€in€the€statuteÐ `  Ðtends€to€limit€the€enforcement€of€arbitration€provisions€toÐ æ6 Ðsituations€in€which€the€plaintiff€"has€knowingly€agreed€to€submitÐ ¼  Ðsuch€disputes€to€arbitration"). óÝ ƒÆ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3- 3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€òòRosenbergóó€involved€a€claim€arising€under€Title€VII,Ð ° Ðits€interpretation€of€the€term€"appropriate"€is€fully€applicableÐ †Ö Ðhere.€€For€one€thing,€the€provision€examined€in€òòRosenbergóó€ð"ð€sectionÐ \¬ Ð118€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1991€ð"ð€mirrors€the€language€found€inÐ 2‚ Ðthe€ADA.€€òòCompareóó€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1991,€Pub.€L.€No.€102„166,€ððÐ X  Ð118,€105€Stat.€1071,€1081€(1991)€(reprinted€at€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1981Ð ° Ðnote),€òòwithóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12212.€€For€another€thing,€section€118€byÐ †Ö Ðits€own€terms€applies€to€"provisions€of€federal€law€amended€by€[theÐ \¬ ÐCivil€Rights€Act€of€1991]."€€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1991,€ðð€118,€105Ð 2‚ ÐStat.€at€1081.€€Because€that€legislation€amended€certain€sectionsÐ X Ðof€the€ADA,€section€118€applies€directly€to€the€ADA.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ððÐ Þ. Ð109,€105€Stat.€at€1077€(amending€sections€101(4)€and€102€of€theÐ ´  ÐADA). òÝ ƒÆ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3- 3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€parties€do€not€dispute€the€district€court's€seeminglyÐ ° Ðreasonable€application€of€Massachusetts€law,€and€we€are€free€toÐ †Ö Ðaccept€their€implicit€concession.€€òòSeeóó€òòMathewson€Corp.óó€v.€òòAlliedÐ \¬ ÐMarine€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€827€F.2d€850,€853€n.3€(1st€Cir.€1987). àÝ ƒÆ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3- 3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€suit€named€Richard€T.€Schnorbus,€the€company's€humanÐ ° Ðresources€manager,€as€a€codefendant.€€Since€Schnorbus's€presenceÐ †Ö Ðadds€nothing€to€the€shape€of€the€issues€on€appeal,€we€referÐ \¬ Ðthroughout€to€General€Dynamics€as€if€it€were€the€sole€defendant. ÓÔ_ÔÝ ƒÆ;ÿÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3- 3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝGeneral€Dynamics€suggests€that€its€request€that€the€recipientÐ ° Ð"review€the€enclosed€materials€carefully"€automatically€charges€theÐ †Ö Ðplaintiff€with€notice€of€the€contents€of€the€linked€documents.€€InÐ \¬ Ðsupport€of€this€line€of€reasoning,€it€cites€òòRosenbergóó€for€theÐ 2‚ Ðproposition€that€"[Ô_Ôi]fÔ_Ô€[the€employer]€had€provided€the€rules€toÐ X Ð[the€employee]€but€[the€employee]€did€not€read€them,€that€would€notÐ Þ. Ðsave€her."€€òòRosenbergóó,€170€F.3d€at€21€n.17.€€In€òòRosenbergóó,€however,Ð ´  Ðthere€was€no€dispute€that€the€plaintiff€had€signed€a€contract€andÐ Š Ú Ðthus€manifested€her€assent€to€be€bound€by€its€terms;€it€was€on€thatÐ ` ° Ðbasis€that€the€court€observed€that€she€would€have€been€obligated€toÐ 6 †  Ðcomply€with€those€terms,€so€long€as€they€had€been€provided€to€herÐ  \  Ðas€promised.€€Thus,€òòRosenbergóó€is€inapposite€on€this€point. dL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPTÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù-Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡4°ï€°X4XÔÔ‡°tI°°4°ï€ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†X§áX°°tIÅ#ÔÔ‡„Âä„XX§áÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†X§áX„„ÂäY#ÔÔ#†4X- XXX§áä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌßA€') °°` dE<¹` AßÐ º  ÐÌNo.€04„1828Ð Ÿ ï ÐÌà@´´!ìàRODERICK€CAMPBELL,ˆÐ K › Ðà@<< ìàPlaintiff,€Appellee,ˆÐ ! q ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ Í   ÐÌà@øøìàGENERAL€DYNAMICS€GOVERNMENT€SYSTEMS€CORPORATION€ANDˆÐ yÉ  Ðà@ ìàRICHARD€T.€SCHNORBUS,ˆÐ OŸ  Ðà@ˆˆìàDefendants,€Appellants.ˆÐ %u  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<Ð` AßÐ Ñ! ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ ¶ Ðà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ŒÜ ÐÌà@P P ìà[Hon.€Nancy€Gertner,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<ã` AßÐ ä4 ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ É ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€Lipez€and€Howard,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð uÅ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ !q ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòArthur€G.€Telegenóó,€with€whom€òòClaudia€T.€Centominióó,€òòChristopherÐ V ÐJ.€Powellóó,€and€òòFoley€Hoag€LLPóó€were€on€brief,€for€appellants.Ð Ü,  Ðà  àòòAnn€Elizabeth€Reesmanóó€and€òòMcGuiness€Norris€&€Williams,€LLPóó€onÐ ²! Ðbrief€for€Equal€Employment€Advisory€Council,€amicus€curiae.Ð ˆØ" Ðà  àòòMartin€J.€Newhouseóó,€òòAndrew€R.€Graingeróó,€and€òòBen€Robbinsóó€onÐ ^ ®# Ðbrief€for€New€England€Legal€Foundation,€amicus€curiae.Ð 4!„$ Ðà  àòòJohn€N.€Lewisóó,€with€whom€òòLawrence€R.€Mehlóó€and€òòJohn€N.€Lewis€&Ð  "Z% ÐAssociatesóó€were€on€brief,€for€appellee.Ð à"0& Ðà  àòòElizabeth€E.€Theranóó,€Attorney,€with€whom€òòEric€S.€Dreibandóó,Ð ¶#' ÐGeneral€Counsel,€òòLorraine€C.€Davisóó,€Acting€Associate€GeneralÐ Œ$Ü( ÐCounsel,€and€òòVincent€J.€Blackwoodóó,€Assistant€General€Counsel,€wereÐ b%² ) Ðon€brief,€for€Equal€Employment€Opportunity€Commission,€amicusÐ 8&ˆ!* Ðcuriae.Ð '^"+ ÐÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ º( $-º( $ ‹‹ÐÓ‡ÓÐ SI)n$. ÀËâ@38494„„‰ÀËâ@‰‹‹SÐÌMay€23,€2005Ð ô)D%0 ÐÐ RHCÊ*&1" ÀËâ@38494 ÀËâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ()n$2  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  |-Ì(4? ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€- XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€appeal€calls€upon€us€toÐ ° Ðconsider€the€enforceability€of€a€mandatory€arbitration€agreement,Ð xÈ Ðcontained€in€a€dispute€resolution€policy€linked€to€an€e„mailedÐ $t Ðcompany„wide€announcement,€insofar€as€it€applies€to€employmentÐ Ð  Ðdiscrimination€claims€brought€under€the€Americans€with€DisabilitiesÐ | Ì ÐAct€(ADA).€€Our€analysis€turns€on€whether€the€employer€providedÐ ( x  Ðminimally€sufficient€notice€of€the€contractual€nature€of€the€e„Ð Ô$  Ðmailed€policy€and€of€the€concomitant€waiver€of€an€employee's€rightÐ €Ð  Ðto€access€a€judicial€forum.€€Weighing€all€the€attendantÐ ,|  Ðcircumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€notice€was€wanting€and€that,Ð Ø( Ðtherefore,€enforcement€of€the€waiver€would€be€inappropriate.€Ð „Ô ÐConsequently,€we€uphold€the€district€court's€denial€of€theÐ 0€ Ðemployer's€motion€to€stay€proceedings€and€compel€the€employee€toÐ Ü, Ðsubmit€his€claim€to€arbitration.Ð ˆØ Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ 4„ Ðà ` àFor€a€period€of€nearly€three€years,€plaintiff„appelleeÐ üL ÐRoderick€Campbell€toiled€as€an€at„will€employee€of€General€DynamicsÐ ¨ø  ÐGovernment€Systems€Corporation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Starting€on€June€6,€2000,€theÐ T!¤" Ðâ âplaintiff€held€a€full„time,€salaried€position.Ð #P$ Ðà ` àOn€April€30,€2001,€at€1:54€p.m.,€General€Dynamics€sent€anÐ ° Ðâ âe„mail€announcement€to€its€entire€work€force€regarding€theÐ \¬ Ðimplementation€of€a€new€dispute€resolution€policy€(the€Policy).€Ð X ÐThe€tag€line€of€the€e„mail€indicated€that€the€sender€wasÐ ´  Ð"Broadcaster,€NDHM€[Ô4‚Ý >ÔÝ‚ ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔNDHM.Broadcaster@GD„NS.ComÔ6•ÔÝ‚ ÍO©ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý n×Ô]"€and€its€subjectÐ ` ° Ðheading€read€"G.€DeMuro€ð"ð€New€Dispute€Resolution€Policy."€€TheÐ  \  Ðmessage€consisted€of€a€page„long€letter€from€Gerard€DeMuro,€theÐ ¸  Ðpresident€of€General€Dynamics.€€In€the€introductory€paragraphs,Ð d´  ÐDeMuro€pointed€out€that€General€Dynamics€was€"a€leader€in€a€veryÐ `  Ðcompetitive€marketplace,"€that€its€success€depended€on€itsÐ ¼  Ðemployees,€and€that€it€was€committed€to€"open,€forthright€andÐ h¸ Ðhonest€communication,"€especially€in€the€context€of€"addressing€andÐ d Ðresolving€employee€issues€concerning€legally€protected€rights€andÐ À Ðmatters."€€Subsequent€paragraphs€explained€that€the€company€hadÐ l¼ Ðdeveloped€the€Policy€as€a€means€to€handle€legal€issues€arising€outÐ h Ðof€workplace€disputes.€€The€e„mail€then€limned€the€Policy's€four„Ð Ä Ðstep€approach€to€dispute€resolution,€describing€the€last€step€asÐ pÀ  Ð"[a]rbitration€by€a€qualified€and€independent€arbitrator."Ð !l" Ðà ` àThe€e„mail€made€no€mention€of€whether€(or€how)€the€PolicyÐ È"$ Ðwould€affect€an€employee's€right€to€access€a€judicial€forum€withÐ t$Ä& Ðrespect€to€workplace€disputes.€€Moreover,€it€neither€specified€thatÐ  &p!( Ðthe€Policy€contained€an€agreement€to€arbitrate€that€would€becomeÐ Ì'#* Ðbinding€upon€continued€employment€nor€indicated€whether€the€termÐ x)È$, Ð"workplace€disputes"€included€those€giving€rise€to€federalÐ $+t&. Ðstatutory€claims.€€The€text€of€the€Policy€was€not€part€of€the€e„Ð ° Ðmail€proper,€although€the€company€posted€the€Policy€on€its€intranetÐ \¬ Ð(its€internal€corporate€network).Ð X Ðà ` àThe€e„mail€did€state€that€the€Policy€would€becomeÐ ´  Ðeffective€on€May€1,€2001€(the€day€following€its€transmission).€€ItÐ ` ° Ðalso€urged€recipients€to€"review€the€enclosed€materials€carefully,Ð  \  Ðas€the€[Policy]€is€an€essential€element€of€your€employmentÐ ¸  Ðrelationship."€€Those€with€questions€were€invited€to€contact€theÐ d´  Ðcompany's€vice„president€of€human€resources.Ð `  Ðà ` àThe€phrase€"enclosed€materials"€was€an€apparent€referenceÐ ¼  Ðto€two€embedded€links€located€at€the€bottom€of€the€e„mail.€€EachÐ h¸ Ðlink€provided€access€to€a€document€that€the€recipient€could€view€byÐ d Ðmoving€a€cursor€over€the€link€and€clicking€on€it.€€The€first€linkÐ À Ðwas€labeled€"Brochure:€Ô4‚Ý ¥ÔÝ‚ ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://csconnect.gd„Ð l¼ Ðcs.com/hr/dispute_resolution.htmÔ6þ!ÔÝ‚ ÍO"ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý °@"Ô";€clicking€on€it€would€haveÐ h Ðprovided€access€to€a€two„page€brochure€that€detailed€how€the€PolicyÐ Ä Ðworked.€€Upon€reading€the€second€page€of€that€brochure,€theÐ pÀ  Ðrecipient€would€have€learned€that€company€employees€who€"continueÐ !l" Ð[their]€current€employment€after€the€effective€date€of€theÐ È"$ Ð[Policy's]€adoption"€would€be€"covered"€by€its€terms€and€that€theÐ t$Ä& ÐPolicy€would€encompass,€among€other€things,€"[e]mploymentÐ  &p!( Ðdiscrimination€and€harassment€claims,€based€on,€for€example,€age,Ð Ì'#* Ðrace,€sex,€religion,€national€origin,€veteran€status,€citizenship,Ð x)È$, Ðdisability€or€other€characteristics€protected€by€law."€€In€a€shadedÐ $+t&. Ðbox€in€the€lower€right„hand€corner€of€that€page,€the€recipientÐ ° Ðwould€have€found€the€following€statement:Ð \¬ ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€Company€has€adopted€this€four„step€policyÐ X Ðas€the€exclusive€means€of€resolving€workplaceÐ Þ. Ðdisputes€for€legally€protected€rights.€€If€anÐ ´  Ðemployee€files€a€lawsuit€against€the€Company,Ð Š Ú Ðthe€Company€will€ask€the€court€to€dismiss€theÐ ` ° Ðlawsuit€and€refer€it€to€the€[Policy].Ð6 † ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà ` àClicking€on€the€second€link,€entitled€"Handbook:Ð â 2  Ðòòhttp://csconnect.gd„cs.com/hr/DRP_Handbook_2.docóó,"€would€haveÐ ŽÞ  Ðprovided€access€to€a€dispute€resolution€handbook,€which€containedÐ :Š  Ðthe€full€text€of€the€Policy€(designated€as€"Human€Resources€PolicyÐ æ6 Ð402"),€a€flow€chart€illustrating€how€the€Policy€worked,€forms€forÐ ’â Ðfiling€claims€at€each€of€the€four€levels,€and€a€compendium€ofÐ >Ž Ðquestions€that€the€company€thought€might€arise.Ð ê: Ðà ` àNo€part€of€the€e„mail€communication€required€a€responseÐ –æ Ðacknowledging€receipt€of€the€Policy€or€signifying€that€a€recipientÐ B’ Ðhad€read€and€understood€its€terms.€€Although€General€Dynamics€setÐ î> Ðup€a€tracking€log€to€monitor€whether€each€of€its€employees€openedÐ šê Ðthe€e„mail€ð"ð€the€record€indicates€that€the€plaintiff€opened€the€e„Ð F –! Ðmail€two€minutes€after€it€was€sent€ð"ð€it€did€not€take€any€steps€toÐ ò!B# Ðrecord€whether€its€employees€clicked€on€the€embedded€links€toÐ ž#î% Ðperuse€either€the€brochure€or€the€handbook.€€Moreover,€GeneralÐ J%š ' ÐDynamics€has€not€supplied€any€evidence€to€contradict€theÐ ö&F") Ðplaintiff's€claim€that€he€never€read€or€saw€the€brochure,€theÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðhandbook,€or€the€Policy€prior€to€his€termination.Ð N*ž%- ÐÐ ú+J'/ Ðò òII.€€TRAVEL€OF€THE€CASEó óÐ ° Ðà ` àOn€December€30,€2002,€General€Dynamics€terminated€theÐ xÈ Ðplaintiff's€employment€on€account€of€persistent€absenteeism€andÐ $t Ðtardiness.€€Alleging€that€these€infractions€(and,€hence,€hisÐ Ð  Ðdismissal)€stemmed€from€a€medical€condition€known€as€sleep€apneaÐ | Ì Ðthat€General€Dynamics€should€have€accommodated,€the€plaintiff€filedÐ ( x  Ðan€administrative€complaint€with€the€proper€agency€chargingÐ Ô$  Ðdiscrimination€on€the€basis€of€disability.€€He€later€withdrew€thatÐ €Ð  Ðcomplaint€and€sued€General€Dynamics€in€a€Massachusetts€state€courtÐ ,|  Ðunder€the€ADA,€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€12101„12213,€and€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.Ð Ø( Ð151B,€ðð€4.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð „Ô Ðà ` àGeneral€Dynamics€removed€the€action€to€the€federalÐ 0€ Ðdistrict€court.€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðððð€1331,€1367,€1441.€€It€thereuponÐ Ü, Ðfiled€an€answer€in€which€it€asserted,€among€other€things,€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðcourt€could€not€try€the€plaintiff's€claims€because€they€wereÐ 4„ Ðsubject€to€resolution€under€the€Policy.€€To€give€teeth€to€thisÐ à0 Ðdefense,€the€company€invoked€the€Federal€Arbitration€Act€(FAA),€9Ð ŒÜ  ÐU.S.C.€ðððð€1„16,€and€moved€to€stay€the€court€proceedings€and€compelÐ 8!ˆ" Ðthe€plaintiff€to€submit€his€claims€to€arbitration.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðððð€3,Ð ä"4$ Ð4.€€In€an€accompanying€memorandum,€it€contended€that€the€PolicyÐ $à& Ðforged€an€enforceable€agreement€to€arbitrate€all€employment„relatedÐ <&Œ!( Ðclaims€and€maintained€that€the€Policy's€four„step€framework€was€theÐ ° Ðexclusive€means€for€resolution€of€the€plaintiff's€claims.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€opposed€that€motion,€moved€to€strike€theÐ X Ðcompany's€affirmative€defense,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€asked€the€court€to€imposeÐ ´  Ðsanctions.€€His€opposition€posited€(i)€that€an€e„mail€communicationÐ ` ° Ðis€not€a€writing€and,€therefore,€the€Policy€did€not€satisfy€theÐ  \  Ð"written€provision"€requirement€of€9€U.S.C.€ðð€2€and€(ii)€that,€inÐ ¸  Ðall€events,€the€Policy€was€unenforceable€because€the€company's€e„Ð d´  Ðmail€communication€had€failed€to€give€the€plaintiff€adequate€noticeÐ `  Ðthat€the€Policy€was€intended€to€form€a€binding€agreement€toÐ ¼  Ðarbitrate.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àIn€response,€General€Dynamics€submitted€the€affidavit€ofÐ d Ðthe€plaintiff's€supervisor,€John€A.€Sawyer.€€Sawyer€vouchsafed€thatÐ À Ðthe€plaintiff€performed€most€of€his€work€on€a€computer€and€wasÐ l¼ Ðaccustomed€to€sending€and€receiving€e„mail€communications.€€He€alsoÐ h Ðaverred€that€he€periodically€reminded€the€plaintiff€that€he€wasÐ Ä Ðresponsible€for€knowing,€understanding,€and€complying€with€companyÐ pÀ  Ðpolicies,€and€that€he€could€access€those€policies€on€theÐ !l" Ð"Connections"€section€of€the€company's€intranet.€€In€a€companionÐ È"$ Ðaffidavit,€the€company's€vice„president€of€human€resources,€Anne€R.Ð ° ÐHarris,€related€that€DeMuro€typically€sent€three€to€five€e„mailsÐ \¬ Ðper€year€to€the€work€force€as€a€whole€and€that€those€e„mailsÐ X Ðgenerally€were€of€company„wide€significance.€€Harris€opined€thatÐ ´  Ðemployees€would€consider€correspondence€from€DeMuro€to€be€importantÐ ` ° Ðand€would€review€those€materials€thoroughly.Ð  \  Ðà ` àNot€to€be€outdone,€the€plaintiff€authored€and€submittedÐ ¸  Ðtwo€counter„affidavits.€€The€first€acknowledged€his€daily€use€of€e„Ð d´  Ðmail€via€the€company's€intranet,€but€observed€that€in€an€averageÐ `  Ðday€he€was€inundated€with€between€ten€and€one€hundred€e„mails.€€HeÐ ¼  Ðmade€the€further€point€that€no€documents€in€his€personnel€file€inÐ h¸ Ðany€way€referred€to€the€Policy.€€The€second€affidavit€emphasizedÐ d Ðthat€the€plaintiff€was€never€informed€that€General€Dynamics€mightÐ À Ðalter€the€terms€of€his€employment€by€e„mail€communications,€thatÐ l¼ Ðbroadcast€e„mails€should€be€regarded€as€significant,€or€that€he€wasÐ h Ðrequired€to€read€such€e„mails€to€keep€abreast€of€the€terms€andÐ Ä Ðconditions€of€his€employment.€€The€plaintiff€stated€that€allÐ pÀ  Ðmatters€affecting€his€employment€were€handled€by€the€company'sÐ !l" Ðhuman€resources€department,€commemorated€in€signed€writings,€andÐ È"$ Ðincluded€in€his€personnel€file.€€None€of€those€compiled€documentsÐ t$Ä& Ðmentioned€the€Policy.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àThe€district€court€determined€that€the€company's€effortsÐ Ì'#* Ðto€notify€the€plaintiff€about€the€Policy€were€insufficient€toÐ x)È$, Ðextinguish€his€right€to€a€judicial€forum€vis„„vis€his€disabilityÐ $+t&. Ðdiscrimination€claims.€€òòSeeóó€òòCampbellóó€v.€òòGen.€Dynamics€Gov't€Sys.Ð ° ÐCorp.óó,€321€F.€Supp.€2d€142,€145,€149€(D.€Mass.€2004).€€Accordingly,Ð \¬ Ðit€denied€the€motion€to€stay€proceedings€and€compel€arbitration.€Ð X ÐòòId.óó€at€150.Ð ´  Ðà ` àIn€reaching€those€conclusions,€the€court€focused€on€theÐ ` ° Ðcharacteristics€of€e„mail€as€a€form€of€notification€and€declaredÐ  \  Ðthat€"a€mass€email€message,€without€more,€fails€to€constitute€theÐ ¸  Ðminimal€level€of€notice€required"€to€enforce€an€agreement€toÐ d´  Ðarbitrate€ADA€claims.€€òòId.óó€at€149.€€The€court€added€that€the€PolicyÐ `  Ðcould€not€be€enforced€under€Massachusetts€contract€law€because€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff€lacked€knowledge€of€the€offer€and,€therefore,€anyÐ h¸ Ðapparent€acceptance€of€the€terms€of€the€Policy€that€might€otherwiseÐ d Ðbe€inferable€from€his€continued€employment€was€nugatory.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ À Ðat€147€n.3.€€Because€it€viewed€the€inadequacy€of€notice€asÐ l¼ Ðdispositive,€the€court€declined€to€reach€the€question€of€whether€anÐ h Ðelectronic€communication€can€constitute€a€written€agreement€withinÐ Ä Ðthe€purview€of€the€FAA.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€150.€€In€a€separate€order,€theÐ pÀ  Ðcourt€struck€the€related€affirmative€defense,€òòseeóó€òòsupraóó€note€3,€andÐ !l" Ðdenied€the€plaintiff's€request€for€sanctions.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àGeneral€Dynamics€now€appeals€both€the€denial€of€itsÐ t$Ä& Ðmotion€to€stay€proceedings€and€compel€arbitration€and€the€orderÐ  &p!( Ðstriking€its€affirmative€defense.€€The€district€court€has€stayedÐ Ì'#* Ðthe€proceedings€below€pending€the€resolution€of€this€interlocutoryÐ x)È$, Ðappeal.Ð $+t&. Ðò òIII.€€APPELLATE€JURISDICTIONó óÐ ° Ðà ` àWe€start€our€analysis€with€a€jurisdictional€inquiry.€€InÐ xÈ Ðthe€absence€of€special€circumstances,€interlocutory€orders€are€notÐ $t Ðimmediately€appealable.€€òòSeeóó€òòRoque„Rodriguezóó€v.€òòLema€Moyaóó,€926€F.2dÐ Ð  Ð103,€104„05€(1st€Cir.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1291.€€The€FAAÐ | Ì Ðcreates€statutory€exceptions€to€the€final€judgment€rule€withÐ ( x  Ðrespect€to€orders€refusing€stays€under€section€3,€òòseeóó€9€U.S.C.€ððÐ Ô$  Ð16(a)(1)(A),€and€orders€denying€petitions€to€compel€arbitrationÐ €Ð  Ðunder€section€4,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€16(a)(1)(B).€€On€this€basis,€it€isÐ ,|  Ðevident€that€we€have€jurisdiction€to€review,€here€and€now,€theÐ Ø( Ðlower€court's€denial€of€the€company's€motion€to€stay€proceedingsÐ „Ô Ðand€compel€arbitration.€€òòSeeóó€òòMarieóó€v.€òòAllied€Home€Mortg.€Corp.óó,€402Ð 0€ ÐF.3d€1,€6€(1st€Cir.€2005).Ð Ü, Ðà ` àThe€order€striking€the€company's€affirmative€defense€is,Ð ˆØ Ðhowever,€a€horse€of€a€different€hue.€€This€order€has€no€footingÐ 4„ Ðwithin€the€FAA's€cache€of€statutory€exceptions€to€the€finalÐ à0 Ðjudgment€rule.€€It€is€not€a€ruling€denying€a€motion€under€sectionÐ ŒÜ  Ð3€or€section€4€of€the€FAA€and,€therefore,€does€not€triggerÐ 8!ˆ" Ðjurisdiction€under€section€16(a)(1).€€Nor€does€this€order€fallÐ ä"4$ Ðwithin€the€FAA's€catchall€provision€for€the€review€of€finalÐ $à& Ðjudgments,€9€U.S.C.€ðð€16(a)(3),€because€it€does€not€"end[]€theÐ <&Œ!( Ðlitigation€on€the€merits€and€leave[]€nothing€more€for€the€court€toÐ è'8#* Ðdo€but€to€execute€the€judgment."€€òòGreen€Tree€Fin.€Corp.óó€v.Ð ”)ä$, ÐòòRandolphóó,€531€U.S.€79,€86€(2000)€(internal€quotation€marksÐ @+&. Ðomitted).€€Since€section€16(a)€clearly€enumerates€the€types€ofÐ ° Ðorders€covered€by€the€FAA's€various€jurisdictional€shelters,€weÐ \¬ Ðdecline€to€treat€that€provision€as€a€general€mechanism€permittingÐ X Ðthe€immediate€appeal€of€òòanyóó€order€hostile€to€arbitration.€€òòAccordóóÐ ´  ÐòòBombardier€Corp.óó€v.€òòNat'l€R.R.€Passenger€Corp.óó,€333€F.3d€250,€254Ð ` ° Ð(D.C.€Cir.€2003).Ð  \  Ðà ` àNor€does€the€fact€that€we€have€appellate€jurisdiction,€inÐ ¸  Ðadvance€of€any€final€judgment,€over€the€district€court's€refusal€toÐ d´  Ðstay€proceedings€and€compel€arbitration€give€us€the€authority€toÐ `  Ðreach€out€and€review€other€rulings€that€are€not€immediatelyÐ ¼  Ðappealable.€€òòSeeóó€òòLimoneóó€v.€òòCondonóó,€372€F.3d€39,€51€(1st€Cir.€2004)Ð h¸ Ð(explaining€that€the€exercise€of€pendent€appellate€jurisdictionÐ d Ðrequires,€at€a€bare€minimum,€a€demonstration€"either€that€theÐ À Ðpendent€issue€is€inextricably€intertwined€with€the€issue€conferringÐ l¼ Ðthe€right€of€appeal€or€that€review€of€the€pendent€issue€isÐ h Ðessential€to€ensure€meaningful€review€of€the€linchpin€issue").€Ð Ä ÐThis€means,€then,€that€there€is€no€principled€way€for€us€to€assertÐ pÀ  Ðjurisdiction€over€the€order€granting€the€motion€to€strike.€€òòSeeóó,Ð !l" Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòMorales€Felicianoóó€v.€òòRullnóó,€378€F.3d€42,€48€n.3€(1st€Cir.Ð È"$ Ð2004)€(rejecting€entreaty€to€exercise€pendent€appellateÐ t$Ä& Ðjurisdiction).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àThat€ends€this€aspect€of€the€matter.€€The€burden€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðestablishing€jurisdiction€rests€with€the€party€who€asserts€itsÐ x)È$, Ðexistence.€€òòSeeóó€òòViqueiraóó€v.€òòFirst€Bankóó,€140€F.3d€12,€16€(1st€Cir.Ð $+t&. Ð1998).€€Because€General€Dynamics€has€failed€to€identify€a€validÐ ° Ðjurisdictional€hook€on€which€we€might€hang€immediate€review€of€theÐ \¬ Ðgrant€of€the€plaintiff's€motion€to€strike,€that€issue€is€notÐ X Ðproperly€before€us.Ð ´  Ðò òIV.€€THE€MERITSó óÐ ` ° Ðà ` àWe€proceed€to€review€the€district€court's€denial€of€theÐ ( x  Ðmotion€to€stay€proceedings€and€compel€arbitration.€€That€orderÐ Ô$  Ðreflects€an€essentially€legal€conclusion€and,€thus,€warrantsÐ €Ð  Ðplenary€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòBercovitchóó€v.€òòBaldwin€Sch.,€Inc.óó,€133€F.3dÐ ,|  Ð141,€147€(1st€Cir.€1998);€òòMcCarthyóó€v.€òòAzureóó,€22€F.3d€351,€354€(1stÐ Ø( ÐCir.€1994).€€In€conducting€our€inquiry,€"[w]e€are€not€wedded€to€theÐ „Ô Ðlower€court's€rationale,€but,€rather,€may€affirm€its€order€on€anyÐ 0€ Ðindependent€ground€made€manifest€by€the€record."€€òòIntergen€N.V.óó€v.Ð Ü, ÐòòGrinaóó,€344€F.3d€134,€141€(1st€Cir.€2003).Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àCongress€passed€the€FAA€to€overcome€a€history€of€judicialÐ 4„ Ðhostility€to€arbitration€agreements.€€òòSeeóó€òòGilmeróó€v.Ð à0 ÐòòInterstate/Johnson€Lane€Corp.óó,€500€U.S.€20,€24€(1991).€€Its€aim€wasÐ ŒÜ  Ðto€"place€such€agreements€upon€the€same€footing€as€otherÐ 8!ˆ" Ðcontracts."€€òòAllied„Bruce€Terminix€Cos.óó€v.€òòDobsonóó,€513€U.S.€265,Ð ä"4$ Ð271€(1995)€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€€As€enacted,€the€FAAÐ $à& Ðpromotes€a€liberal€federal€policy€favoring€arbitration€andÐ <&Œ!( Ðguarantees€that€"[a]€written€provision€in€.€.€.€a€contractÐ è'8#* Ðevidencing€a€transaction€involving€commerce€to€settle€byÐ ”)ä$, Ðarbitration€a€controversy€thereafter€arising€out€of€such€contractÐ @+&. Ðor€transaction€.€.€.€shall€be€valid,€irrevocable,€and€enforceable,Ð ° Ðsave€upon€such€grounds€as€exist€at€law€or€in€equity€for€theÐ \¬ Ðrevocation€of€any€contract."€€9€U.S.C.€ðð€2.Ð X Ðà ` àSection€3€of€the€FAA,€9€U.S.C.€ðð€3,€affords€a€mechanismÐ ´  Ðby€which€a€party€can€request€a€court€to€stay€a€judicial€proceedingÐ ` ° Ðwhen€the€matter€before€the€court€involves€an€issue€governed€by€anÐ  \  Ðagreement€to€arbitrate.€€Section€4,€9€U.S.C.€ðð€4,€allows€a€partyÐ ¸  Ðaggrieved€by€another€party's€refusal€to€arbitrate€to€petition€aÐ d´  Ðdistrict€court€to€compel€arbitration€in€accordance€with€theÐ `  Ðparties'€preexisting€agreement.€€A€party€seeking€to€stayÐ ¼  Ðproceedings€under€section€3€or€to€compel€arbitration€under€sectionÐ h¸ Ð4€must€demonstrate€"that€a€valid€agreement€to€arbitrate€exists,Ð d Ðthat€the€movant€is€entitled€to€invoke€the€arbitration€clause,€thatÐ À Ðthe€other€party€is€bound€by€that€clause,€and€that€the€claimÐ l¼ Ðasserted€comes€within€the€clause's€scope."€€òòIntergenóó,€344€F.3d€atÐ h Ð142.€€The€need€for€such€a€showing€follows€from€the€bedrockÐ Ä Ðprinciple€that€"a€party€seeking€to€substitute€an€arbitral€forum€forÐ pÀ  Ða€judicial€forum€must€show,€at€a€bare€minimum,€that€theÐ !l" Ðprotagonists€have€agreed€to€arbitrate€òòsomeóó€claims."€€òòMcCarthyóó,€22Ð È"$ ÐF.3d€at€354„55.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àIn€this€appeal,€the€parties€dispute€the€most€abecedarianÐ  &p!( Ðof€the€four€elements:€€whether€a€valid€agreement€to€arbitrateÐ Ì'#* Ðexists.€€This€element€recognizes€that,€"[t]hough€a€person€may,€byÐ x)È$, Ðcontract,€waive€his€or€her€right€to€adjudication,€òòseeóó€9€U.S.C.€ðð€2,Ð $+t&. Ðthere€can€be€no€waiver€in€the€absence€of€an€agreement€signifying€anÐ ° Ðassent."€€òòId.óó€at€355.€€In€this€vein,€"arbitration€is€a€matter€ofÐ \¬ Ðcontract,"€òòAT&T€Techs.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòCommunications€Workersóó,€475€U.S.Ð X Ð643,€648€(1986)€(quoting€òòUnited€Steelworkersóó€v.€òòWarrior€&€GulfÐ ´  ÐNavig.€Co.óó,€363€U.S.€574,€582€(1960)),€and€for€the€most€part,Ð ` ° Ðgeneral€principles€of€state€contract€law€control€the€determinationÐ  \  Ðof€whether€a€valid€agreement€to€arbitrate€exists,€òòseeóó€òòPerryóó€v.Ð ¸  ÐòòThomasóó,€482€U.S.€483,€492€n.9€(1987)€("[S]tate€law,€whether€ofÐ d´  Ðlegislative€or€judicial€origin,€is€applicable€òòifóó€that€law€arose€toÐ `  Ðgovern€issues€concerning€the€validity,€revocability,€andÐ ¼  Ðenforceability€of€contracts€generally.");€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMirra€Co.óó€v.Ð h¸ ÐòòSch.€Admin.€Dist.€#35óó,€251€F.3d€301,€304€(1st€Cir.€2001);€òòRosenbergóóÐ d Ðv.€òòMerrill€Lynch,€Pierce,€Fenner€&€Smith,€Inc.óó,€170€F.3d€1,€19€(1stÐ À ÐCir.€1999).Ð l¼ Ðà ` àWhen€a€party€relies€on€the€FAA€to€assert€a€contractualÐ h Ðright€to€arbitrate€a€claim€arising€under€a€federal€employmentÐ Ä Ðdiscrimination€statute,€the€court€must€undertake€a€supplementalÐ pÀ  Ðinquiry€ð"ð€one€that€may€overlap€with€the€standard€contract€analysis,Ð !l" Ðbut€is€independent€of€it.€€That€supplemental€inquiry€grows€out€ofÐ È"$ Ðthe€principle€that€while€federal€statutory€claims€can€come€withinÐ t$Ä& Ðan€arbitration€agreement€that€is€enforceable€pursuant€to€the€FAA,Ð  &p!( Ðsome€federal€statutory€claims€may€not€be€appropriate€forÐ Ì'#* Ðarbitration.€€òòGilmeróó,€500€U.S.€at€26.€€Thus,€the€supplementalÐ x)È$, Ðinquiry€focuses€on€whether€the€agreement€to€arbitrate€isÐ $+t&. Ðenforceable€with€respect€to€the€particular€statutory€claim€at€issueÐ ° Ð(here,€the€plaintiff's€ADA€claim).€€In€sieving€these€sands,€theÐ \¬ Ðburden€is€on€the€party€resisting€arbitration€to€show€(by€means€ofÐ X Ðstatutory€text,€legislative€history,€or€some€inherent€conflictÐ ´  Ðbetween€arbitration€and€the€statute's€purposes)€that€Congress,€inÐ ` ° Ðenacting€a€particular€statute,€intended€to€preclude€a€waiver€of€aÐ  \  Ðjudicial€forum€for€certain€statutory€claims.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ ¸  Ðà ` àWe€applied€these€principlesòòóó€in€òòBercovitchóó,€where€weÐ d´  Ðrejected€the€plaintiffs'€contention€that€their€ADA€claims€wereÐ `  Ðbeyond€the€reach€of€the€FAA.€€òòSeeóó€òòBercovitchóó,€133€F.3d€at€149„51.€Ð ¼  ÐIn€arriving€at€that€conclusion,€we€found€that€the€plaintiffs€hadÐ h¸ Ðnot€carried€their€burden€because€nothing€in€the€text€or€legislativeÐ d Ðhistory€of€the€ADA€indicated€an€intent€to€preclude€arbitration.€Ð À ÐòòId.óó€€To€the€contrary,€the€ADA€expressly€endorses€arbitration€byÐ l¼ Ðproviding€that€"[w]here€appropriate€and€to€the€extent€authorized€byÐ h Ðlaw,€the€use€of€alternative€means€of€dispute€resolution,€includingÐ Ä Ð.€.€.€arbitration,€is€encouraged€to€resolve€disputes€arising€underÐ pÀ  Ðthis€Act."€òòóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12212.€€In€fine,€the€text€of€the€ADA€leavesÐ !l" Ðno€doubt€that€Congress€contemplated€arbitral€resolution€of€at€leastÐ È"$ Ðsome€claims€brought€thereunder.€€òòBercovitchóó,€133€F.3d€at€151.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àAlthough€òòBercovitchóó€solved€a€part€of€the€puzzle€inÐ  &p!( Ðfinding€that€the€ADA€did€not€necessarily€prohibit€enforcement€of€aÐ Ì'#* Ðwaiver€of€a€right€to€a€judicial€forum,€the€question€remainedÐ x)È$, Ðwhether€agreements€involving€such€waivers€are€enforceable€as€longÐ $+t&. Ðas€they€meet€the€requirements€of€the€FAA€or,€alternatively,€whetherÐ ° Ðsection€12212€should€be€understood€to€impose€a€further,€independentÐ \¬ Ðlimitation€on€the€enforceability€of€such€agreements.€€That€inquiryÐ X Ðhas€come€to€focus€on€the€bearing,€if€any,€of€the€clause€"[w]hereÐ ´  Ðappropriate€and€to€the€extent€authorized€by€law,"€42€U.S.C.€ððÐ ` ° Ð12212,€on€the€enforceability€of€agreements€to€arbitrate€ADA€claims.€Ð  \  ÐIn€òòWrightóó€v.€òòUniversal€Maritime€Service€Corp.óó,€525€U.S.€70€(1998),Ð ¸  Ðthe€Supreme€Court€gave€force€to€the€word€"appropriate"€in€sectionÐ d´  Ð12212€by€finding€that€it€would€not€be€appropriate,€within€theÐ `  Ðmeaning€of€that€word,€to€enforce€an€agreement€to€arbitrateÐ ¼  Ðemployment€discrimination€claims,€contained€in€a€collectiveÐ h¸ Ðbargaining€pact,€where€a€union's€waiver€of€employee€rights€was€notÐ d Ð"clear€and€unmistakable."€€òòId.óó€at€82€&€n.2.€€In€articulating€thatÐ À Ðstandard,€the€Court€expressly€declined€to€consider€whether€toÐ l¼ Ðextend€it€to€individual€waivers€and€refrained€from€commenting€onÐ h Ðthe€meaning€of€the€word€"appropriate"€in€the€latter€context.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ä Ðòòid.óóÐ pÀ  Ðà ` àIn€òòRosenbergóó,€this€court€addressed€that€interpretiveÐ !l" Ðquestion€in€considering€the€effect€of€identical€language€found€inÐ È"$ Ðthe€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1991€on€the€enforceability€of€individualÐ t$Ä& Ðagreements€to€arbitrate€certain€employment€discrimination€claims.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р &p!( ÐòòSeeóó€òòRosenbergóó,€170€F.3d€at€18„19.€€The€òòRosenbergóó€majority€reasonedÐ ° Ðthat,€at€the€very€least,€the€words€"to€the€extent€authorized€byÐ \¬ Ðlaw"€must€mean€that€civil€rights€statutes€are€no€more€permissiveÐ X Ðthan€the€FAA€in€enforcing€agreements€to€arbitrate;€that€is,Ð ´  Ð"arbitration€agreements€that€are€unenforceable€under€the€FAA€areÐ ` ° Ðalso€unenforceable€when€applied€to€claims€under€[such€statutes]."€Ð  \  ÐòòId.óó€at€19.€€The€majority€deemed€it€unnecessary€to€decide€whetherÐ ¸  Ðthat€clause€carries€"a€meaning€greater€than€a€reference€to€theÐ d´  ÐFAA,"€òòid.óó,€and€instead€focused€on€Congress's€concern€thatÐ `  Ðagreements€to€arbitrate€be€enforced€only€when€it€would€beÐ ¼  Ð"appropriate"€to€do€so,€òòid.óó€at€19„21.€€Noting€that€the€wordÐ h¸ Ð"appropriate"€conveyed€"a€concern€not€expressed€in€the€FAA€or€atÐ d Ðcommon€law,"€òòid.óó€at€19,€the€òòRosenbergóó€majority€interpreted€thatÐ À Ðword€as€prompting€an€additional,€independent€inquiry€into€theÐ l¼ Ðappropriateness€of€restricting€access€to€a€judicial€forum€or€ofÐ h Ðcompelling€arbitration€in€a€particular€federal€statutory€case,׃@×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòid.óóÐ Ä Ðat€20.€€The€majority€then€found€that€enforcing€the€arbitrationÐ ° Ðagreement€as€to€Rosenberg's€Title€VII€claim€would€not€beÐ \¬ Ðappropriate€under€the€circumstances€attendant€to€the€formation€ofÐ X Ðthat€agreement.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€19„21.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€appropriateness€analysis€is€case„specific.€€InÐ ` ° ÐòòRosenbergóó,€the€plaintiff,€upon€accepting€a€trainee€position€withÐ  \  Ðthe€defendant,€had€signed€a€standard€securities€industry€form,Ð ¸  Ðknown€as€a€U„4,€which€contained€an€agreement€to€arbitrate€certainÐ d´  Ðemployment„related€claims.€€òòId.óó€at€3.€€In€lieu€of€specifying€whatÐ `  Ðkinds€of€claims€were€covered,€the€U„4€form€incorporated€byÐ ¼  Ðreference€the€rules€of€various€securities€organizations€but€did€notÐ h¸ Ðindicate€whether€those€rules€covered€all€disputes€(or€anyÐ d Ðdisputes).€€òòId.óó€at€18.€€The€employer,€despite€promising€to€do€so,Ð À Ðnever€supplied€Rosenberg€with€a€copy€of€the€applicable€rules,€norÐ ° Ðdid€it€adduce€evidence€that€she€had€been€made€familiar€with€them.€Ð \¬ ÐòòId.óó€at€20.€€Because€(i)€the€U„4€form€did€not€on€its€face€indicateÐ X Ðthat€the€agreement€to€arbitrate€extended€to€all€employment€disputesÐ ´  Ðand€(ii)€the€employer€had€neglected€to€familiarize€Rosenberg€withÐ ` ° Ðthe€rules€delineating€coverage€despite€its€express€promise€to€doÐ  \  Ðso,€the€majority€found€it€inappropriate€to€impress€the€provisionÐ ¸  Ðrequiring€arbitration€on€Rosenberg's€Title€VII€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòseeóóÐ d´  Ðòòalsoóó€òòid.óó€at€21€(relying€upon€òòWrightóó,€525€U.S.€at€82€n.2,€for€theÐ `  Ðproposition€that€the€appropriateness€requirement€"has€some€teeth").€Ð ¼  ÐIn€so€holding,€the€òòRosenbergóó€majority€determined€that€the€employerÐ h¸ Ðmust€afford€"some€minimal€level€of€notice€to€the€employee€thatÐ d Ðstatutory€claims€are€subject€to€arbitration"€in€order€forÐ À Ðarbitration€to€be€deemed€appropriate.€€òòId.óó€at€21.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àWhile€òòRosenbergóó's€application€of€the€appropriatenessÐ h Ðstandard€is€fact„dependent,€we€are€bound€by€the€majority'sÐ Ä Ðrecognition€that€this€statutory€term€has€some€independent€bite.€Ð pÀ  ÐAccordingly,€we€must€inquire€whether€General€Dynamics's€e„mailÐ !l" Ðannouncement€of€the€Policy€provided€sufficient€notice€to€theÐ È"$ Ðplaintiff€that€his€continued€employment€would€constitute€a€waiverÐ t$Ä& Ðof€his€right€to€litigate€any€employment„related€ADA€claim,€therebyÐ  &p!( Ðrendering€judicial€enforcement€of€that€waiver€appropriate.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àViewed€against€this€backdrop,€General€Dynamics€canÐ x)È$, Ðprevail€on€its€demand€for€arbitration€only€if€it€can€establish€thatÐ $+t&. Ðthe€provision€for€mandatory€arbitration€is€part€of€a€valid€contractÐ ° Ðwithin€the€purview€of€the€FAA€and€this€court€finds€that€theÐ \¬ Ðenforcement€of€the€arbitration€provision€would€be€appropriate€underÐ X Ðthe€ADA.€€These€are€independent,€yet€overlapping,€issues.€€TheÐ ´  Ðdistrict€court€focused€on€whether€the€agreement€was€enforceableÐ ` ° Ðunder€the€ADA€and€the€parties€have€devoted€the€lion's€share€ofÐ  \  Ðtheir€argumentation€to€that€point.€€Consequently,€we€turn€first€toÐ ¸  Ðthe€question€of€appropriateness.€€Assuming,€for€argument's€sake,Ð d´  Ðthat€the€arbitration€agreement€is€a€valid€contract€under€generalÐ `  Ðprinciples€of€Massachusetts€law,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€inquire€whether€42€U.S.C.€ððÐ ¼  Ð12212,€which€recognizes€agreements€to€arbitrate€ADA€claims€onlyÐ h¸ Ðwhere€doing€so€would€be€appropriate,€precludes€the€enforcement€ofÐ d Ðthe€agreement.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€appropriateness€of€enforcing€an€agreement€toÐ l¼ Ðarbitrate€an€ADA€claim€hinges€on€whether,€under€the€totality€of€theÐ h Ðcircumstances,€the€employer's€communications€to€its€employeesÐ Ä Ðafforded€"some€minimal€level€of€notice"€sufficient€to€apprise€thoseÐ pÀ  Ðemployees€that€continued€employment€would€effect€a€waiver€of€theÐ !l" Ðright€to€pursue€the€claim€in€a€judicial€forum.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€21.€€InÐ È"$ Ðmany€cases,€an€employer€will€be€able€to€satisfy€this€relativelyÐ t$Ä& Ðlight€burden€by€producing€evidence€demonstrating€that€the€employeeÐ  &p!( Ðhad€actual€notice€of€the€agreement.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòGibsonóó€v.Ð ° ÐòòNeighborhood€Health€Clinics,€Inc.óó,€121€F.3d€1126,€1130€(7th€Cir.Ð \¬ Ð1997).€€Here,€however,€General€Dynamics€did€not€bother€to€elicitÐ X Ðfrom€any€employee€an€affirmation€that€he€or€she€had€read€the€e„mailÐ ´  Ð(much€less€the€Policy)€or€that€he€or€she€had€become€aware€thatÐ ` ° Ðarriving€for€work€the€next€morning€would€constitute€bindingÐ  \  Ðacceptance€of€a€new€contractual€term€replacing€court€access€withÐ ¸  Ðarbitration.€€For€his€part,€the€plaintiff€steadfastly€maintainsÐ d´  Ðthat€he€neither€read€the€transmittals€nor€learned€of€the€purportedÐ `  Ðwaiver€of€his€right€to€litigate€until€General€Dynamics€tried€toÐ ¼  Ðshunt€his€claims€to€arbitration.€€At€this€stage€of€the€proceedings,Ð h¸ Ðthen,€there€is€no€basis€for€a€compelled€finding€of€actual€notice.Ð d Ðà ` àAccordingly,€the€sufficiency€of€the€notice€turns€onÐ À Ðwhether,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€employer'sÐ l¼ Ðcommunication€would€have€provided€a€reasonably€prudent€employeeÐ h Ðnotice€of€the€waiver.€€This€is€an€objective€standard.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ä ÐòòRosenbergóó,€170€F.3d€at€21€n.17.€€Factors€relevant€to€this€analysisÐ pÀ  Ðinclude,€but€are€not€limited€to,€the€method€of€communication,€theÐ !l" Ðworkplace€context,€and€the€content€of€the€communication.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àAs€an€initial€matter,€this€case€requires€us€to€considerÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€proper€weight€that€the€choice€of€a€mass€e„mail€as€a€means€ofÐ  &p!( Ðcommunication€bears€on€this€multi„factor€inquiry.€€The€districtÐ Ì'#* Ðcourt€sharply€discounted€General€Dynamics's€case€based€on€its€useÐ x)È$, Ðof€this€particular€medium.€€òòSeeóó€òòCampbellóó,€321€F.€Supp.€2d€at€148„Ð $+t&. Ð49.€€We€question€the€extent€of€that€discount;€in€our€view,€an€e„Ð ° Ðmail,€properly€couched,€can€be€an€appropriate€medium€for€forming€anÐ \¬ Ðarbitration€agreement.€€Withal,€we€do€not€read€the€district€court'sÐ X Ðopinion€as€holding€to€the€contrary€ð"ð€that€would€be€incorrect€ð"ð€butÐ ´  Ðas€enumerating€several€ways€in€which€General€Dynamics€readily€andÐ ` ° Ðinexpensively€could€have€made€this€particular€e„mail€notice€moreÐ  \  Ðinformative.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€149.€€We€nonetheless€acknowledge€that€theÐ ¸  Ðdistrict€court's€opinion€does€exhibit€a€high€degree€of€skepticismÐ d´  Ðabout€the€use€of€e„mail€in€this€context.€€We€do€not€share€thatÐ `  Ðskepticism:€€we€easily€can€envision€circumstances€in€which€aÐ ¼  Ðstraightforward€e„mail,€explicitly€delineating€an€arbitrationÐ h¸ Ðagreement,€would€be€appropriate.Ð d Ðà ` àIn€all€events,€the€Electronic€Signatures€in€Global€andÐ À ÐNational€Commerce€Act€(E„Sign€Act),€Pub.€L.€No.€106„229,€114€Stat.Ð l¼ Ð464€(2000)€(codified€at€15€U.S.C.€ðððð€7001„7031òòóó),€likely€precludesÐ h Ðany€flat€rule€that€a€contract€to€arbitrate€is€unenforceable€underÐ Ä Ðthe€ADA€solely€because€its€promulgator€chose€to€use€e„mail€as€theÐ pÀ  Ðmedium€to€effectuate€the€agreement.€€The€E„Sign€Act€provides€inÐ !l" Ðpertinent€part:Ð È"$ ÐÓÓà8 ` àNotwithstanding€any€statute,€regulation,€orÐ t$Ä& Ðother€rule€of€law€(other€than€this€subchapter€Ð J%š ' Ðand€subchapter€II€of€this€chapter),€withÐ  &p!( Ðrespect€to€any€transaction€in€or€affectingÐ ö&F") Ðinterstate€or€foreign€commerce€ð"ð€(1)€aÐ Ì'#* Ðsignature,€contract,€or€other€record€relatingÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðto€such€transaction€may€not€be€denied€legalÐ x)È$, Ðeffect,€validity,€or€enforceability€solelyÐ N*ž%- Ðbecause€it€is€in€electronic€form.€€Ð$+t&.` x` x ÐÐ ú+J'/ ÐÓÓ15€U.S.C.€ðð€7001(a).€€This€statute€definitively€resolves€the€issue,Ð ° Ðleft€open€by€the€district€court,€òòCampbellóó,€321€F.€Supp.€2d€at€150,Ð \¬ Ðas€to€whether€an€e„mail€agreement€to€arbitrate€is€unenforceableÐ X Ðunder€the€FAA€because€it€does€not€satisfy€the€FAA's€"writtenÐ ´  Ðprovision"€requirement,€9€U.S.C.€ðð€2.€€By€its€plain€terms,€the€E„Ð ` ° ÐSign€Act€prohibits€any€interpretation€of€the€FAA's€"writtenÐ  \  Ðprovision"€requirement€that€would€preclude€giving€legal€effect€toÐ ¸  Ðan€agreement€solely€on€the€basis€that€it€was€in€electronic€form.€Ð d´  ÐòòSeeóó€òòSpechtóó€v.€òòNetscape€Communications€Corp.óó,€306€F.3d€17,€26€n.11Ð `  Ð(2d€Cir.€2002).€Ð ¼  Ðà ` àHaving€clarified€that€the€choice€of€mass€e„mail€is€notÐ h¸ Ðdeterminative€of€the€appropriateness€of€the€notice,€we€consider€theÐ d Ðrelevance€of€that€means€of€notification€within€the€context€ofÐ À ÐGeneral€Dynamics's€workplace€routines€and€conventions.€€We€start€byÐ l¼ Ðinquiring€whether€the€e„mail€announcement€was€typical€in€comparisonÐ h Ðto€other€significant€communications€transmitted€to€the€plaintiffÐ Ä Ðover€the€course€of€his€employment.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àThe€history€of€past€communication€at€this€workplaceÐ !l" Ðestablishes€that€e„mails€were€a€preferred€method€of€communication.€Ð È"$ ÐThe€plaintiff,€however,€takes€the€position€that,€althoughÐ t$Ä& Ðelectronic€communication€via€the€company's€intranet€may€have€beenÐ  &p!( Ð"the€most€widely€used€method€of€communicating€with€co„workers,"€e„Ð Ì'#* Ðmail€was€not€the€usual€means€utilized€by€the€company€to€handleÐ x)È$, Ðpersonnel€matters.€€Rather,€any€significant€alterations€to€theÐ $+t&. Ðemployment€relationship€(including€his€hiring€and€termination)€wereÐ ° Ðmemorialized€in€conventional€writings€that€required€a€signature€onÐ \¬ Ða€piece€of€paper,€which€was€then€placed€in€a€personnel€file.€Ð X ÐGeneral€Dynamics€does€not€dispute€these€facts,€but€counters€thatÐ ´  Ðthe€plaintiff€performed€most€of€his€work€on€a€computer€and€that€hisÐ ` ° Ðsupervisor€had€informed€him€that€company€policies€were€accessibleÐ  \  Ðon€the€intranet.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àWe€find€the€company's€proffer€wanting.€€ConspicuouslyÐ d´  Ðabsent€is€the€identification€of€any€other€instance€in€which€theÐ `  Ðcompany€relied€upon€either€an€e„mail€or€an€intranet€posting€toÐ ¼  Ðintroduce€a€òòcontractualóó€term€that€was€to€become€a€condition€ofÐ h¸ Ðcontinued€employment.€€We€think€that€there€is€a€qualitativeÐ d Ðdifference€between€such€a€term€and€a€policy€that€informs€theÐ À Ðemployment€relationship€but€imposes€no€enforceable€obligations€uponÐ l¼ Ðeither€party.Ð h Ðà ` àThis€defect€weighs€all€the€more€heavily€because€it€couldÐ Ä Ðso€easily€have€been€remedied.€€One€way€that€General€Dynamics€couldÐ pÀ  Ðhave€set€this€particular€communication€apart€from€the€crowd€wouldÐ !l" Ðhave€been€to€require€a€response€to€the€e„mail.€€Instead,€theÐ È"$ Ðcompany€opted€for€a€"no€response€required"€format.€€Within€theÐ t$Ä& Ðcontext€of€this€particular€employment€relationship,€in€whichÐ  &p!( Ðsignificant€personnel€matters€historically€had€been€transacted€viaÐ Ì'#* Ðsigned€documents,€this€choice€disguised€the€import€of€theÐ x)È$, Ðcommunication.€€Signing€an€acknowledgment€or,€in€a€more€modernÐ $+t&. Ðcontext,€clicking€a€box€on€a€computer€screen,€are€acts€associatedÐ ° Ðwith€entering€into€contracts.€€Requiring€an€affirmative€response€ofÐ \¬ Ðthat€sort€would€have€signaled€that€the€Policy€was€contractual€inÐ X Ðnature.€€Although€we€do€not€hold€that€the€requirement€of€anÐ ´  Ðaffirmative€response€is€necessary€to€satisfy€section€12212€in€everyÐ ` ° Ðcircumstance,€the€lack€of€that€level€of€inexpensively€obtainableÐ  \  Ðformality€made€it€less€likely€that€the€communication€would€spark€aÐ ¸  Ðrealization€that€the€new€Policy€marshaled€binding€effects.Ð d´  Ðà ` àThe€upshot€is€that€the€record€supports€the€conclusionÐ `  Ðthat€e„mail€was€a€familiar€format€for€many€forms€of€intra„officeÐ ¼  Ðcommunication,€but€it€does€not€suggest€that€e„mail€was€aÐ h¸ Ðtraditional€means€either€for€conveying€contractually€binding€termsÐ d Ðor€for€effectuating€waivers€of€employees'€legal€rights.€€Given€thatÐ À Ðcircumstance,€we€cannot€say€that€delivery€of€an€e„mail€heraldingÐ l¼ Ðthe€birth€of€a€new€policy€would€raise€a€red€flag€vivid€enough€toÐ h Ðcause€a€reasonable€employee€to€anticipate€the€imposition€of€aÐ Ä Ðlegally€significant€alteration€to€the€terms€and€conditions€of€hisÐ pÀ  Ðemployment.€€Therefore,€within€the€context€of€this€case,€the€e„mailÐ !l" Ðcommunication,€in€and€of€itself,€was€not€enough€to€put€a€reasonableÐ È"$ Ðemployee€on€inquiry€notice€of€an€alteration€to€the€contractualÐ t$Ä& Ðaspects€of€the€employment€relationship.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àThis€leaves€the€content€of€the€communication,€which€hadÐ Ì'#* Ðtwo€components:€€the€e„mail€announcement€and€the€ancillaryÐ x)È$, Ðdocuments€that€were€accessible€via€computer€link.€€We€take€theÐ $+t&. Ðcommunication€as€the€employer€structured€it€and,€therefore,€focusÐ ° Ðon€the€content€of€the€e„mail€announcement.€€General€Dynamics€reliedÐ \¬ Ðupon€that€broadcast€to€introduce€the€Policy,€and€it€is€clear€beyondÐ X Ðperadventure€that€its€effectiveness€vel€non€in€unveiling€the€natureÐ ´  Ðand€significance€of€the€Policy€is€relevant€to€whether€a€reasonableÐ ` ° Ðperson€should€be€charged€with€inquiry€notice€of€the€mandatoryÐ  \  Ðarbitration€agreement€contained€in€the€Policy.€€Upon€closeÐ ¸  Ðperscrutation,€we€conclude€that€its€text€did€not€carry€the€burdenÐ d´  Ðof€providing€fair€warning€that€showing€up€for€work€the€next€dayÐ `  Ðwould€result€in€a€waiver€of€important€rights.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àOne€fundamental€flaw€is€that€the€e„mail€did€not€stateÐ h¸ Ðdirectly€that€the€Policy€contained€an€arbitration€agreement€thatÐ d Ðwas€meant€to€effect€a€waiver€of€an€employee's€right€to€access€aÐ À Ðjudicial€forum.€€Nor€did€the€e„mail€contain€anything€to€put€theÐ l¼ Ðrecipient€on€inquiry€notice€of€that€possibility€by€conveying€theÐ h ÐPolicy's€contractual€significance.€€While€explicitness€may€not€beÐ Ä Ða€sine€qua€non€of€an€effective€notice,€it€would€have€gone€a€longÐ pÀ  Ðway€toward€meeting€the€employer's€burden.Ð !l" Ðà ` àA€second€flaw€relates€to€tone€and€choice€of€phrase.€Ð È"$ ÐWhile€the€Policy€itself€spoke€in€clear,€contractual€language€(e.g.,Ð t$Ä& Ð"continuation€of€employment€by€an€individual€shall€be€deemed€[an]Ð  &p!( Ðacceptance"€of€the€provisions€of€the€Policy,€that€"[t]he€mutualÐ Ì'#* Ðobligations€set€forth€in€[the]€Policy€shall€constitute€a€contractÐ x)È$, Ðbetween€the€Employee€and€the€Company,"€and€that€"[the]€Policy€shallÐ $+t&. Ðconstitute€the€entire€agreement€between€the€Employee€and€theÐ ° ÐCompany€for€the€resolution€of€covered€Claims"),€the€e„mailÐ \¬ Ðannouncement€descanted€in€an€entirely€different€vocabulary,Ð X Ðdownplaying€the€obligations€set€forth€in€the€Policy.€€The€text€ofÐ ´  Ðthe€e„mail€did€not€state€either€that€the€Policy€containedÐ ` ° Ðcontractually€binding€terms€or€that€the€employer€would€treatÐ  \  Ðcontinued€employment€as€an€acceptance€of€those€terms.€€Perhaps€mostÐ ¸  Ðtelling,€the€e„mail's€description€of€the€four„step€disputeÐ d´  Ðresolution€procedure€omitted€the€crucial€fact€that,€as€a€matter€ofÐ `  Ðlaw,€the€regimen€would€become€an€employee's€exclusive€remedy€forÐ ¼  Ðemployment„related€claims€of€virtually€every€kind€and€description.€Ð h¸ ÐFinally,€while€the€e„mail€announcement€communicated€the€notion€thatÐ d Ðarbitration€is€a€kinder,€gentler€alternative€to€litigation€and€hadÐ À Ðthe€company's€blessing,€it€did€not€suggest€that€arbitration€was€toÐ l¼ Ðbecome€mandatory€and€thereby€extinguish€an€employee's€access€to€aÐ h Ðjudicial€forum€as€a€means€for€dispute€resolution.€€So€viewed,€theÐ Ä Ðcontents€of€the€e„mail€do€not€constitute€a€very€sturdy€reed€uponÐ pÀ  Ðwhich€to€rest€a€finding€of€inquiry€notice.Ð !l" Ðà ` àGeneral€Dynamics€makes€much€of€the€fact€that€the€e„mailÐ È"$ Ðannouncement€stated€that€the€Policy€was€"an€essential€element€ofÐ t$Ä& Ð[the]€employment€relationship"€and€requested€the€recipient€toÐ  &p!( Ð"review€the€enclosed€materials€carefully."€Although€theseÐ Ì'#* Ðstatements€would€indicate€to€a€reasonable€person€that€the€employerÐ x)È$, Ðregarded€the€Policy€as€important,€they€do€not€in€and€of€themselvesÐ $+t&. Ðelucidate€(or€even€intimate)€the€imposition€of€a€mandatoryÐ ° Ðagreement€to€arbitrate.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòCf.óó€òòPattersonóó€v.€òòTenet€Healthcare,€Inc.óó,Ð \¬ Ð113€F.3d€832,€835€(8th€Cir.€1997)€(noting€that€terms€such€as€"IÐ X Ðagree,"€"I€accept,"€and€"condition€of€employment"€distinguishÐ ´  Ðlegally€significant€communications€from€non„binding€policies€byÐ ` ° Ðimparting€to€an€employee€that€the€communication€constitutes€anÐ  \  Ðenforceable€contract).€€Here,€the€request€to€read€certain€materialsÐ ¸  Ðdid€little€to€provide€notice€of€a€waiver€of€the€right€to€access€aÐ d´  Ðjudicial€forum€because€the€accompanying€description€of€thoseÐ `  Ðmaterials€failed€to€convey€their€legal€significance.€€Ð ¼  Ðà ` àTo€be€blunt,€the€e„mail€announcement€undersold€theÐ h¸ Ðsignificance€of€the€Policy€and€omitted€the€critical€fact€that€itÐ d Ðcontained€a€mandatory€arbitration€agreement.€€The€result€was€thatÐ À Ða€reasonable€employee€could€read€the€e„mail€announcement€andÐ l¼ Ðconclude€that€the€Policy€presented€an€optional€alternative€toÐ h Ðlitigation€rather€than€a€mandatory€replacement€for€it.€€BecauseÐ Ä Ðthat€primary€communication€lends€itself€to€such€a€conclusion€ð"ðÐ pÀ  Ðrather€than€cluing€in€the€reader€by€including€a€simple€statement€ofÐ ° Ðthe€kind€contained€in€the€Policy€itself€that€"[t]he€mutualÐ \¬ Ðobligations€set€forth€in€[the]€Policy€shall€constitute€a€contractÐ X Ðbetween€the€Employee€and€the€Company"€ð"ð€we€conclude€that€it€failedÐ ´  Ðto€put€the€recipient€on€inquiry€notice€of€the€unilateral€contractÐ ` ° Ðoffer€contained€in€the€linked€materials.Ð  \  Ðà ` àOur€journey€is€not€yet€at€an€end.€€There€is€a€finalÐ ¸  Ðcircumstance€under€which€the€communication€might€have€conveyedÐ d´  Ðsufficient€notice.€€The€e„mail€announcement€did€alert€employees€toÐ `  Ðthe€existence€of€a€new€employee€handbook€containing€the€Policy.€Ð ¼  ÐThis€adds€a€new€dimension€to€the€employer's€argument.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àPersonnel€handbooks€do€not€have€uniform€legalÐ d Ðsignificance;€the€import€of€such€a€handbook€varies€according€to€aÐ À Ðmultitude€of€factors.€€In€Massachusetts,€for€example,€theÐ l¼ Ðenforceability€of€an€employee€handbook€as€a€contract€depends€uponÐ h Ða€host€of€considerations,€including€its€content€and€theÐ Ä Ðcircumstances€of€its€distribution.€€òòSeeóó€òòO'Brienóó€v.€òòNew€Eng.€Tel.€&Ð pÀ  ÐTel.€Co.óó,€664€N.E.2d€843,€847„49€(Mass.€1996).€€In€some€instances,Ð !l" Ðsuch€handbooks€may€meet€the€requirements€for€the€formation€of€aÐ È"$ Ðcontract.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòid.óó€at€849.€€In€other€instances,€they€do€not.€Ð t$Ä& ÐòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWeberóó€v.€òòCmty.€Teamwork,€Inc.óó,€752€N.E.2d€700,€714Ð  &p!( Ð(Mass.€2001);€òòJacksonóó€v.€òòAction€for€Boston€Cmty.€Dev.óó,€525€N.E.2dÐ Ì'#* Ðâ â411,€415€(Mass.€1988).Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àIf€a€reasonable€employee€of€General€Dynamics€would€haveÐ ° Ðâ âknown,€given€prior€dealings€between€the€company€and€its€work€force,Ð \¬ Ðthat€personnel€handbooks€operated€as€the€functional€equivalents€ofÐ X Ðcontracts,€the€introduction€of€a€new€policy€and€the€fact€of€itsÐ ´  Ðpromulgation€in€a€reissued€handbook€might€have€sufficed€to€alertÐ ` ° Ðsuch€an€employee€that€the€handbook€contained€legally€binding€terms.€Ð  \  ÐHere,€however,€General€Dynamics€has€produced€no€evidence€that€anyÐ ¸  Ðhistorical€use€of€personnel€handbooks€in€the€workplace€would€haveÐ d´  Ðsuggested€that€the€reissued€handbook€carried€contractualÐ `  Ðsignificance.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€company'sÐ ¼  Ðpromulgation€of€a€new€handbook,€without€more,€does€not€support€aÐ h¸ Ðfinding€of€adequate€notice.€Ð d Ðà ` àIn€the€last€analysis,€the€question€is€whether€theÐ À Ðannouncement€provided€minimally€sufficient€notice€by€signaling€toÐ l¼ Ða€reasonable€employee€that€the€Policy€was€a€contractual€instrumentÐ h Ðwhose€terms€would€be€deemed€accepted€upon€continued€employmentÐ Ä Ð(and,€thus,€placed€the€employee€on€inquiry€notice€of€theÐ pÀ  Ðcontemplated€waiver€of€his€legal€rights).€€Having€examined€theÐ !l" Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances€ð"ð€the€method,€content,€and€context€ofÐ È"$ Ðthe€communication€ð"ð€we€answer€that€question€in€the€negative.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àWe€caution€that€this€holding€should€not€be€read€as€aÐ  &p!( Ðgeneral€denunciation€of€e„mail€as€a€medium€for€contract€formationÐ Ì'#* Ðin€the€workplace.€€This€is€a€close€case,€and€our€holding€here€isÐ x)È$, Ðtied€to€its€specific€facts.€€Moreover,€our€analysis€has€Ô_ÔrevealedÐ $+t&. Ðseveral€simple€steps€readily€available€to€the€employer€that€likelyÐ ° Ðwould€have€ensured€the€adequacy€of€the€notice.€€ò òó óIn€òòRosenbergóó,€170Ð \¬ ÐF.3d€at€19,€we€observed€that€an€employer€who€takes€a€Ô_ÔbarebonesÔ_ÔÐ X Ðapproach€to€affording€notice€runs€the€risk€that€its€efforts€willÐ ´  Ðfall€short.€€This€case€illustrates€the€accuracy€of€thatÐ ` ° Ðobservation.Ð  \  ÐÔ_Ôò òV.Ô_Ô€€CONCLUSIONÐ ¸  Ðà ` àó óWe€need€go€no€further.€€Under€the€peculiar€circumstancesÐ €Ð  Ðof€this€case,€we€cannot€say€that€the€e„mail€announcement€would€haveÐ ,|  Ðapprised€a€reasonable€employee€that€the€Policy€was€a€contract€thatÐ Ø( Ðextinguished€his€or€her€right€to€access€a€judicial€forum€forÐ „Ô Ðresolution€of€federal€employment€discrimination€claims.€€In€theÐ 0€ Ðabsence€of€minimally€sufficient€notice,€we€conclude€that€it€wouldÐ Ü, Ðnot€be€appropriate€to€enforce€the€Policy's€purported€waiver€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðright€to€litigate€ADA€claims.€€Consequently,€the€district€court€didÐ 4„ Ðnot€err€in€denying€the€motion€to€stay€the€litigation€and€compelÐ à0 Ðrecourse€to€an€arbitral€forum.Ð ŒÜ  ÐÌòòò òAffirmedóó.ó óÐ ä"4$ ÐÌÌà@ä ä ìàò òð"ð€Concurring€Opinion€Follows€ð"ðó óˆÐ  (T#* ÐÑ8€5- 5XXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ€6Ñò òà ` àòòóóLIPEZ,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,€concurring.€€ó óJudge€Selya'sÐ ° Ðapplication€of€our€decision€in€òòRosenbergóó€v.€òòMerrill€Lynch,€Pierce,Ð xÈ ÐÔ_ÔFennerÔ_Ô€&€Smith,€Inc.óó,€170€F.3d€1€(1st€Cir.€1999),€to€the€facts€ofÐ $t Ðthis€case€is€exemplary.€€I€write€separately€for€the€sole€purpose€ofÐ Ð  Ðaffirming€my€support€for€that€precedent.