Jeffords v. Navex Global, Inc.

**What Happened** This case involved a dispute between a customer and IU Credit Union over whether the customer had agreed to settle future disputes through arbitration (a private process instead of going to court). The credit union had sent the customer an arbitration addendum - essentially a new contract term - and argued that because the customer remained silent and didn't object, they had automatically agreed to it. **What the Court Decided** The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against the credit union, affirming their earlier decision. The court held that customers cannot be forced into arbitration agreements simply by staying silent when they receive new contract terms in the mail. The credit union had asked the court to reconsider this decision, but the court rejected their arguments and stuck with the original ruling. **Why This Matters for Workers** This decision protects workers and consumers from being trapped in unwanted arbitration agreements through sneaky tactics. It establishes that companies cannot assume silence means consent when they try to change contract terms. This is important because arbitration often limits people's rights and makes it harder to pursue claims against employers or service providers in court.