Arbitration — FLSA

Where plaintiffs have alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the defendant employer’s motion to dismiss should be allowed as to plaintiffs who signed valid, binding arbitration agreements as part of their employment.

“Defendants argued that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs Gavin, Winters, Wolf, Speaker, Lindquist, Kertesez, and Burns’s claims because they signed valid, binding arbitration agreements as part of their employment with Defendant Lady Jane’s Haircuts. ... For the reasons below, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs Gavin, Winters, Wolf, Speaker, Lindquist, Kertesez, and Burns.

“Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it is cost-prohibitive. ... Plaintiffs claimed that, by making the agreement subject to the American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) commercial arbitration rules, which require the parties to split the costs of arbitration rather than the employment arbitration rules, which require the employer to bear the costs of arbitration ‘means that workers[] like hairstylists[] cannot effectively vindicate their rights.’

“Simply put, Plaintiffs demonstrated that the use of the AAA’s commercial rules is cost-prohibitive.

“Because Plaintiffs Gavin, Winters, Wolf, Speaker, Lindquist, Kertesez, and Burns’s claims are subject to arbitration, the Court will dismiss the claims.

“Defendants contended that Plaintiff Gibbons’s claims should be dismissed as time-barred. ... Specifically, Defendants argued that Plaintiff Gibbons’s FLSA claims should be dismissed because she filed her FLSA claims four years after her employment with Defendants endedtwo years after the FLSA limitations period ended. ... Defendants are correct. And the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Gibbons claims as time-barred.

“Plaintiffs Gavin, Winters, Wolf, Speaker, Lindquist, Kertesez, and Burns’s claims are subject to compulsory arbitration. Because no party requested a stay, the Court will dismiss their claims without prejudice. Plaintiff Gibbons’s FLSA claims are time-barred. The Court will therefore dismiss Plaintiff Gibbons’s FLSA claims with prejudice and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Gibbons’s remaining State law claims.”

Gavin v. Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men Holding Co. LLC; MiLW 02-108024, 17 pages; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Murphy, J.

Click here to read the full opinion

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.