Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge
I concur in the court’s interpretation and application of the Toussaint rule. I am *463troubled, however, by the short shrift given to Ms. Batchelor’s claim that, due to her poor reading ability, she could not comprehend the disclaimer and merely signed the job application form in a routine manner without realizing its contractual nature. Batchelor presented evidence of her limited education and reading level, and also presented an expert's analysis of the level of reading difficulty of the Sears “contract.” The district court rejected her argument summarily, relying on a passage from a 1929…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Horn v. CookeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- Sponseller v. KimballMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Pakulski v. LudwiczewskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Richeson v. WagarMichigan Supreme Court · 1938