A Missouri appeals court has refused to send an employment case to arbitration, not because the arbitration clause was unfair, but because the employment contract that contained it never came into existence. The offer letter left the start date open, and the company withdrew the offer before the worker ever reported for the job.
Decided September 15, 2026. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, issued its opinion in Jeremy Bredwell v. Snap-On Incorporated, et al., No. WD88325, and The Missouri Bar circulated the summary on September 18. Appellate opinions may still be subject to rehearing or an application for transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri, so the decision should be treated as the current state of the law rather than the final word.
Arbitration clauses are now routine in onboarding paperwork. They appear in offer letters, in terms-and-conditions packets sent the day after an offer, and in handbook acknowledgments. Employers use them to keep disputes out of the courthouse and away from a jury. Most of the reported fights over those clauses turn on whether the clause itself is enforceable: whether it is unconscionable, whether it is supported by consideration, whether it covers the particular claim. The Western District’s decision in Bredwell turns on something earlier and more basic. Before a court asks whether an arbitration provision is enforceable, it asks whether the parties made a contract at all.
What the record showed
According to the opinion, Jeremy Bredwell worked as a sales representative for Snap-on Equipment, Inc. from August 2018 until May 2023. In December 2022 he signed an employment agreement with that company that contained an arbitration provision. In April 2023 he applied for a position with Snap-on Industrial, a sister company.
On May 10, 2023, Industrial sent him a letter offering the role of territory sales manager. On the question of when the job would begin, the letter said the date “is yet to be determined” and that the company “anticipate[d] on or around May 29, 2023.” The letter also confirmed that the employment would be at will. The following day, Industrial sent a separate document, referred to in the opinion as the 2023 Agreement, setting out terms and conditions of employment. It was already signed by company representatives and it contained an arbitration provision. Bredwell signed both documents on May 12, 2023.
On May 31, 2023, before Bredwell had started the new position, Industrial rescinded the offer, citing performance concerns from his prior role. In October 2024 he sued, alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act and retaliation for exercising rights under the workers’ compensation law. Snap-On moved to compel arbitration under the 2023 Agreement. The circuit court denied the motion, and Snap-On appealed.
Why an appeal was available at that stage. A denial of a motion to compel arbitration is one of the few interlocutory rulings Missouri law makes immediately appealable. Section 435.440.1(1), RSMo, permits an appeal from “an order denying an application to compel arbitration made under section 435.355.” That is why the dispute over the forum reached the Court of Appeals years before any trial on the underlying claims.
Source: Section 435.440, RSMo, Missouri Revisor of Statutes.
The court never reached the arbitration clause
The Western District affirmed the denial. Its reasoning did not depend on anything about the arbitration language. The court held that no contract had been formed between Bredwell and Industrial, and that an arbitration provision inside a contract that was never formed has nothing to attach to.
Two points carried the analysis. First, the offer had to be definite enough that “the promises and performances required by each party are reasonably certain,” and the court concluded that “identifying an actual start date for Bredwell to begin employment was an essential term of the at-will employment offer.” Drawing on earlier Western District decisions, the opinion observed that “a statement of duration is typically an essential element to an employment contract.” A start date described as yet to be determined, with an anticipated window, did not supply that term. Second, Industrial withdrew the offer before Bredwell began work, so nothing he did afterward could supply the missing definiteness through performance. The court stated the conclusion plainly: “Because there was no definite offer, no contract existed between the parties.”
A signature is evidence that someone agreed to terms. It is not, by itself, proof that a contract exists.
One detail limits how far the decision reaches. Bredwell had signed a 2022 arbitration agreement with the first Snap-on entity. Snap-On withdrew the portion of its motion resting on that document, so the court expressly declined to decide whether the 2022 provision was enforceable or whether it would have covered these claims. The opinion resolves the 2023 paperwork and nothing more.
Why formation is decided under state contract law
Whether an arbitration agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act or by Missouri’s arbitration statutes, the threshold question of whether the parties ever reached an agreement is answered by ordinary state contract principles. Missouri’s statute makes a written arbitration provision “valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract,” with stated exceptions for contracts of insurance and contracts of adhesion. That language presupposes a contract. It does not create one.
Missouri also imposes a formatting requirement that is easy to overlook in a paperwork packet. Section 435.460, RSMo, directs that a contract subject to the state arbitration act carry, adjacent to or above the signature space, a statement in ten-point capital letters that the contract contains a binding arbitration provision. Whether the state act or the federal act supplies the governing rules for a particular agreement is itself a threshold question that can be contested, so the safer course for an employer is to satisfy the state formality rather than assume it has been displaced.
What this means for Missouri employers
The practical lesson is that an arbitration program is only as durable as the document that carries it. Several habits follow from the decision, and they cost very little to adopt.
State a definite start date in the offer letter. “Yet to be determined” and “on or around” were the words the court fastened on. A specific date, subject to a stated contingency, is a different document.
Consider a standalone arbitration agreement. An arbitration agreement that stands on its own, supported by its own mutual promises, does not rise and fall with the employment contract it was bundled into.
Address applicants, not only employees. A dispute can arise from a hiring decision that never produced a day of work. Paperwork drafted only for people who start does not reach that situation.
Include the statutory notice. The ten-point capital-letters statement required by Section 435.460 belongs adjacent to or above the signature line.
These are drafting questions rather than litigation questions, and they are usually resolved in an afternoon of review. Our business law practice handles agreements of this kind, and our business litigation practice deals with what happens when the drafting has to be defended.
What this means for workers and applicants
Two points matter for someone on the other side of that paperwork. The first is that signing an arbitration provision does not automatically mean a claim must go to an arbitrator. Whether the surrounding agreement was ever formed is a legitimate question, and in Bredwell it was answered in the employee’s favor.
The second is that a rescinded offer is not necessarily outside the reach of the discrimination statutes. Section 213.055.1(1), RSMo, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” on a protected basis. The statute reaches hiring decisions, not only terminations. For age claims, Section 213.010 defines “age” as forty or more years but less than seventy, and since the 2017 amendments the protected characteristic must have been the “motivating factor” in the decision. The separate workers’ compensation retaliation statute, Section 287.780, uses the same motivating-factor standard and gives an employee a civil action for damages.
Deadlines are short and they run early. A Missouri Human Rights Act claim ordinarily begins with a charge filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. Under Section 213.111, RSMo, once the commission issues a notice of right to sue, the civil action must be filed within ninety days of that letter, and in no event later than two years after the alleged cause occurred.
Waiting to see whether an employer reconsiders is one of the more common ways these deadlines are missed.
The Court of Appeals decided the forum, not the merits. Bredwell’s discrimination and retaliation claims have not been adjudicated, and nothing in the opinion suggests a view about whether they will succeed. What the decision settles is that they will be heard in circuit court rather than before an arbitrator. If you are weighing a claim of this kind, our employment law practice and our civil rights practice address both the substance of the claim and the procedural questions that decide where it is heard.
Helpful resources
The coverage below is drawn from several vantage points and labeled by ownership, so you can weigh each account and reach your own conclusion.
Slip opinion, Bredwell v. Snap-On Inc., No. WD88325 (Mo. App. W.D. Sept. 15, 2026) · the court’s own opinion, hosted by Justia, a United States legal-information company.
Missouri Courts opinions portal · official publication of the Missouri Judiciary.
Section 435.350, 435.355, 435.440 and 435.460, RSMo · the Missouri Revisor of Statutes, the state’s official publisher of the codified law.
Section 213.055, 213.010 and 213.111, RSMo, and Section 287.780, RSMo · Missouri Revisor of Statutes.
Missouri Commission on Human Rights · a state agency within the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.
The Missouri Bar newsroom, case summaries for Sept. 11–17, 2026 · The Missouri Bar, the state’s unified bar association, which serves the legal profession.
“Court rejects arbitration bid in comp retaliation case” · Business Insurance, an independent United States trade publication written for risk management and insurance professionals, an audience that largely represents the employer side.
Related on this site: Missouri’s two whistleblower laws and what each protects · Two Missouri default judgment rulings in one week
Review the paperwork before it is tested
Whether you are drafting an offer letter or deciding what to do about one that was withdrawn, a short conversation is often enough to identify what matters.
Or call (314) 732-1547
This article is provided for general educational purposes only. It is not legal or tax advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Haake Law Group PC or Derek R. Haake. Court decisions may be subject to rehearing or transfer, statutes are amended, and the application of any rule depends on the specific facts involved. Verify the current text of any statute with the Missouri Revisor of Statutes and consult a licensed attorney about your own situation before acting.