A recent federal
opinion from the Middle District of North Carolina confirms the enforceability of agreements to
arbitrate in the employment context. In
Peraza v. Rent-A-Center, a Hispanic plaintiff filed a pro se suit for alleged employment
discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, as well as for
retaliation. The complaint alleged that
the plaintiff complained of his supervisors’ disparate treatment of Hispanic
customers only to have no corrective action taken in response. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that his
supervisors began to retaliate against him for making the complaint by writing
him up for small attendance-related infractions for which non-Hispanics were
not disciplined. Finally, after the
plaintiff reported the supervisors’ conduct to HR, his employment was
terminated. The plaintiff filed suit
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The
defendant employer promptly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and order
the case to arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement that the
plaintiff signed during his employment.
That agreement stated that the parties “mutually consent to the
resolution by arbitration of all claims or controversies, past, present or
future, including without limitation, claims arising out of or related to
[Plaintiff's] application for employment, assignment/employment, and/or the termination
of [Plaintiff's] assignment/employment.”
The agreement specifically covered claims of employment discrimination
and harassment.
Furthermore,
the agreement provided that an arbitrator must also decide “gateway issues of
arbitrability.” On this point, the
agreement stated that “[t]he Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local
court or agency, shall have 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 void or voidable.”
The
Magistrate Judge made short work in concluding that the arbitration agreement
controls under the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.” The Magistrate also recognized that the
parties’ agreement to arbitrate even gateway issues of arbitrability is
likewise enforceable. In fact, that very
issue, the Magistrate noted, has been recently decided by the United States
Supreme Court in another Rent-A-Center case, Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010).
For these
reasons, the Magistrate issued a recommendation that the defendant’s motion be
granted.
As
explained, the plaintiff was pro se, or representing himself, in the
matter.
In opposing the motion, the plaintiff argued that the case should remain in court, in part because of language concerns. Indeed, the response itself reflected both that the plaintiff was unrepresented and limited in his command of the English language. Here too, the Magistrate quickly determined that such challenges must be taken to the arbitrator for resolution.
In opposing the motion, the plaintiff argued that the case should remain in court, in part because of language concerns. Indeed, the response itself reflected both that the plaintiff was unrepresented and limited in his command of the English language. Here too, the Magistrate quickly determined that such challenges must be taken to the arbitrator for resolution.
