Employment - Arbitration

Where a defendant employer moved to compel arbitration, that motion should be allowed based on an arbitration agreement between the parties.

“Marketta Hardaway claims that her employer, Aveanna Healthcare, LLC, created a hostile work environment for her and other Black employees. When she complained about it, she says Aveanna retaliated against her by forcing her to return to work despite being on medical leave and eventually terminating her. So she brought this suit alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

“In response, Aveanna moved to compel arbitration, claiming Hardaway signed an arbitration agreement when she agreed to work there. That agreement, says Aveanna, contains a delegation clause that delegates to the arbitrator even the threshold question of whether Hardaway’s claims are arbitrable. Thus, Aveanna asks this Court to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay it pending arbitration.

“For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Aveanna’s motion to compel arbitration and STAYS the case pending arbitration.

“Here, when Hardaway began her role as Clinical Nursing Supervisor, she was provided electronic access to Aveanna’s Mutual Arbitration Agreement by logging into an iCIMS account. This agreement contains a delegation clause giving the arbitrator ‘the exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any Claim that all or any part of this Agreement is unenforceable, void or voidable.’ So the Court must only consider the first question: whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties.

“Here, Aveanna has put forth an arbitration agreement that Hardaway allegedly signed, but Hardaway disputes that she ever did so. However, she does not adequately put the making of the arbitration contract ‘in issue,’ so the Court must grant Aveanna’s motion to compel.

“In other words, even if Hardaway does not remember signing the agreement and did not intend to agree to arbitrate, she can still be compelled to arbitrate if she in fact signed the agreement.

“Hardaway’s ambiguous affidavit, claiming both that she did not sign the arbitration agreement and that she did not remember signing the agreement, is insufficient to put the agreement’s validity ‘in issue’ in light of Aveanna’s clear evidence showing otherwise.

“In sum, because Aveanna has provided an arbitration agreement that Hardaway electronically signed, and because Hardaway has not sufficiently put the validity of that agreement at issue, Hardaway is subject to the arbitration agreement. And because that agreement contains a delegation clause, Hardaway must arbitrate even the threshold issue of arbitrability. Indeed, Hardaway makes no argument about the delegation clause and thus, has forfeited the issue.

“For the foregoing reasons, Aveanna’s motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED and the Court STAYS the proceedings, pending resolution of arbitration.”

Hardaway v. Aveanna Healthcare LLC; MiLW 02-108045, 11 pages; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Michelson, J.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.