Sakyi v. Estée Lauder Cos.
Citation | 308 F.Supp.3d 366 |
Decision Date | 25 April 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17–1863 (BAH) |
Parties | Princess SAKYI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ESTÉE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Jason Samuel Rathod, Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Matthew F. Nieman, Amanda Leigh Scott Vaccaro, Jackson Lewis P.C., Reston, VA, Michael J. Schrier, Duane Morris, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
The plaintiff, Princess Sakyi, a former cosmetology student at the Aveda Institute in Washington, D.C., filed a three-count complaint against defendants Beauty Basics, Inc., d/b/a Aveda Institutes South ("BBI"), the Estée Lauder Companies, Inc. ("ELC"), and Aveda Corporation ("Aveda"), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleging that the defendants engaged in unlawful and deceptive trade practices, failed to pay minimum wages, and failed to pay wages in a timely manner by using their students as unpaid employees. Am. Compl. at 2, 8–10, ECF No. 10. Pending before the Court are defendant BBI's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration ("BBI Mot. Compel"), ECF No. 25, and defendants ELC and Aveda's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, to Stay ("ELC Mot. Compel"), ECF No. 28. The defendants seek to compel arbitration pursuant to an Arbitration Agreement between the plaintiff and defendant BBI, see BBI Mot. Compel, Ex. 1, Decl. of Kalli Blackwell Peterman ("Peterman Decl."), Attach. A, Arbitration Agreement & Waiver of Jury Trial ("Agreement") at 5–6, ECF No. 25–1. For the reasons described below, the defendants' motions are granted.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint and to compel arbitration. The circumstances underlying, and terms of, the Arbitration Agreement will therefore be discussed first, followed by a brief discussion of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants.
On March 9, 2016, plaintiff Princess Sakyi enrolled in a cosmetology course offered at defendant BBI's Washington, D.C., location. Peterman Decl. ¶ 9.1 When the plaintiff enrolled in this course, she signed an Enrollment Agreement as well as an Arbitration Agreement and Waiver of Jury Trial ("Arbitration Agreement" or "Agreement"). Id. ¶ 10. The first paragraph of the Arbitration Agreement states:
Any dispute I may bring against Aveda Institute (the "Institute"), or any of its parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, or employees, without limitation, or which the Institute may bring against me, no matter how characterized, pleaded or styled, shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, conducted by the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"), under its Consumer Arbitration Rules ("Consumer Rules"), and decided by a single arbitrator. The arbitration hearing will be conducted in Washington, DC.
Agreement ¶ 1. The Agreement further provides that neither party would file any lawsuit against the other and that "any suit filed in violation of this provision shall be promptly dismissed in favor of arbitration." Id. ¶ 3. In addition, the Agreement includes a provision prohibiting class proceedings, in which the plaintiff agreed that "any dispute or claim I may bring shall be brought solely in my individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class action, representative proceeding, mass action or consolidated action." Id. ¶ 5.
Several other provisions of the Agreement are relevant to this dispute. The Agreement selects the law of the District of Columbia as controlling law, id. ¶ 8, and includes a severability clause stating that "[i]f any paragraph, sub-paragraph, provision, or clause herein is held invalid, said paragraph, sub-paragraph, provision, or clause shall not affect any other paragraph, sub-paragraph, provision, or clause that can have effect without the invalidated paragraph, sub-paragraph, provision, or clause, and thus is severable one from the other,"id. ¶ 10. The plaintiff signed her initials at the end of each paragraph and also signed and dated the bottom of the Agreement, which is countersigned by a school official. Id. at 5–6.
BBI is a "nationally accredited private post-secondary institution offering career training in a variety of beauty related fields, including cosmetology." Peterman Decl. ¶ 2. BBI "regularly receives funds in the form of student loans and grants that are regulated by the Department of Education," and "[m]ost of the tuition for BBI's students are [sic] paid by way of a mix of federal student loans and grants, all administered under the Title IV student financial aid statutes" and "related regulations." Id. ¶ 7. Each student pays "approximately $26,000 in tuition" for this course. Am. Compl. ¶ 18. In this case, the plaintiff paid "approximately $5,000 out of pocket and $21,000 in student loans." Id.
As part of the curriculum, and pursuant to cosmetology licensing requirements, "student enrollees provide cosmetology services for paying customers." Id. ¶ 13. According to the plaintiff, prospective students were told that "supervised students train directly with guests, delivering the trademark difference that defines an AVEDA school," id. ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks omitted); that "the one-of-a-kind hands-on experience that they would receive in training at the Aveda Institute would be by licensed educators within a salon environment in which students will learn the latest styles and techniques in haircutting, hair styling and hair coloring," id. ¶ 16 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); and that "they would receive all the preparation they need to take the state board exam and would receive an ipad [sic] as part of the program," id. ¶ 17.
Nonetheless, the plaintiff's complaint describes how the students were exploited: the students "spent many days not training, but as line employees, performing simple, repetitive tasks for Aveda clients without supervision—such as straightforward nail or hair jobs," id. ¶ 19, and did not receive an hourly wage for this work, although they did occasionally receive tips from customers, id. ¶ 20. The students were required to "follow detailed requirements imposed on them by Defendants" and were "subject to grading, discipline and even termination from the program based on Defendants' discretion and/or students' failure to adhere to these requirements (such as rules regarding their contact with customers, the hours they maintain in the salon, and the accurateness of their services)." Id. ¶ 21. According to the plaintiff, Id. ¶ 23. After completing work for their customers, students were also "required" to "show customers the Aveda–branded products that they used on the customers and try to sell the products to customers," id. ¶ 24, and were asked to "occasionally fill-in on the retail sales floor, performing general sales and other duties for Defendants unrelated to their degree," id. In addition, "[s]taff at the Aveda Institute required Plaintiff and other students to pay out-of-pocket for iPads, which were rarely incorporated in to [sic] their study," even though "students had been told that the cost of the iPad would be included in tuition." Id. ¶ 25.
The plaintiff contends that because the students were "required to spend so much time in the salon," they "did not receive the coursework necessary to be properly prepared for the state board exam." Id. ¶ 26. The students allegedly raised this concern with the defendants, who provided additional coursework to the students after the course had ended. Id. The plaintiff states that this deficiency "meant that students had to spend additional resources coming to the Institute for weeks after the program was supposed to end and also delay the start of their cosmetology careers." Id. In fact, the plaintiff avers that "[h]ad Defendants disclosed to Plaintiff and other students the true nature of the Aveda Institute's cosmetology program, including but not limited to the amount of time they would spend on repetitive, comparatively unskilled nail and hair work, the students would have chosen another cosmetology program." Id. ¶ 27.
On July 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Aveda Institute, Inc. ("AII"), and the Estée Lauder Companies in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging unlawful and deceptive trade practices in violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("DCCPPA"), D.C. Code § 28–3901 et seq. , failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act ("DCMWRA"), D.C. Code § 32–1001 et seq. , and failure to pay all wages earned in a timely manner in violation of the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Act ("DCWPCA"), D.C. Code § 32–1301 et seq. Defs.' Notice of Removal, Ex. 1, Compl. ("Compl.") at 8–10, ECF No. 1–1. The plaintiff brought this complaint on behalf of herself "and all cosmetology students who have enrolled at the Aveda Institute in Washington D.C." Id. ¶ 27.
Regarding the class claims, the complaint alleges that the "critical questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class that will materially advance the litigation are whether Defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material facts about the cosmetology program to Plaintiffs and the class and whether applicable law required Defendants to pay wages to Plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Osvatics v. Lyft, Inc.
...resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration." Sakyi v. Estée Lauder Cos. , 308 F. Supp. 3d 366, 375 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph , 531 U.S. 79, 91, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) ). Thus, t......
-
Contreras v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
...Inc . (S.D.Fla. 2017) 2017 WL 878712, at *12-13 ; Ali v. Vehi-Ship, LLC (N.D.Ill. 2017) 2017 WL 5890876, at *5 ; Sakyi v. Estee Lauder Cos. (D.D.C. 2018) 308 F.Supp.3d 366 ; Olivares v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2017) 2017 WL 3008278, at *3.)None of these cases involve PAGA claims; ......
-
Slaughter v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration." Sakyi v. Estée Lauder Cos. , 308 F. Supp. 3d 366, 375 (D.D.C. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph , 531 U.S. 79, 91, 121 S.Ct. 513,......
-
Mitchell ex rel. All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Craftworks Rests. & Breweries, Inc.
..."is reserved for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise." Sakyi v. Estée Lauder Cos., Inc., 308 F. Supp. 3d 366, 380 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Reed Elsevier, Inc. ex rel. LexisNexis Div. v. Crockett, 734 F.3d 594, 599 (6th Cir. 2013)); see also Cat......