Albertson v. Art Inst. of Atlanta, Corp.
Decision Date | 23 March 2017 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-03922-WSD-RGV |
Parties | ROBERT ALBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. ART INSTITUTE OF ATLANTA, a Georgia corporation, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Pending before the Court is a motion to compel arbitration filed by defendants Art Institute of Atlanta ("AIA") and EDMC Marketing and Advertising, Inc., a/k/a Education Management Corporation and Education Management, LLC ("EDMC"), jointly referred to as "defendants," [Doc. 7],1 which plaintiff Robert Albertson ("Albertson") opposes,2 [Doc. 8]. For the reasons that follow, it isRECOMMENDED that defendants' motion to compel arbitration, [Doc. 7], be GRANTED, but their request for attorneys' fees be DENIED.
On October 20, 2016, Albertson, a white male over the age of 50, filed the instant complaint against defendants, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("§ 1981"). [Doc. 1 ¶¶ 13-29]. According to the complaint, Albertson was hired by defendants as a faculty member at EDMC's AIA campus in January 2001, and he became the Academic Director of Media for AIA in 2003. [Id. ¶¶ 5-6]. He alleges that following the hiring of Newton Myvett ("Myvett") as President of AIA in 2011, he opposed certain discriminatory practices by another AIA professor against AIA students and began being treated with hostility by Myvett, which ultimately led to his termination without cause in January 2016. [Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 11].
In July 2012, EDMC instituted an Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy ("ADR Policy"), which utilizes a multi-step process for resolving employment-related disputes between EDMC and its employees and requires binding arbitration as the final step. See [Doc. 7-2 (the ADR Policy)].3 In particular, the ADR Policy provides in pertinent part:
[Id. at 2 (footnote omitted)]. The ADR Policy also provides that Level One Disputes may be processed through all four steps of the dispute resolution procedures, consisting of informal resolution, submission to the company's senior management, mediation, and binding arbitration, and Level One Disputes include the following:
• Level One Disputes: Claims alleging a violation of legally protected rights such as claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination or other alleged unlawful treatment, including asserted violations of state, local or federal law. By way of example, such claims include, but are not limited to, alleged violations of the [ADEA]; [Title VII and] the Civil Rights Acts of . . . 1991; the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 2008 amendments to same; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Equal Pay Act; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; the Workers Adjustment and Restraining Notification Act; [§ 1981], or any alleged violation of public policy, any statutory or common law tort claims or alleged breach of contract claims, or any disputearising out of the discipline, demotion or termination of any employee or any other personnel issue of a substantial nature. . . .
[Id. at 2-6].
On October 3, 2012, at approximately 9:00 a.m., EDMC sent an e-mail to Albertson's work e-mail address, stating:
[Doc. 7-3 (Thalman Decl.) at 3 ¶ 4]. This e-mail included two links: one that would direct Albertson to a copy of the ADR Policy and another that would direct Albertson to a login screen, where he would be required to enter his unique username and password,4 in order to enter the ADR Policy Acceptance page, which stated:
[Id. at 3-4 ¶¶ 5-7, 9-10; Doc. 7-4 at 2; Doc. 7-5 at 2]. This screen provided a box to click "Accept" at the bottom, and if clicked, the screen would display a "Next" button, which, if clicked, would then display the ADR Policy Acceptance Summary Screen, which stated, [Doc. 7-3 at 4-5 ¶¶ 10-11; Doc. 7-5 at 2; Doc. 7-6 at 2]. At approximately 11:31 a.m. on October 3, 2012, an employee with the Employee Profile Number 27558, later identified as Albertson, accepted the ADR Policy as shown by a"Results" message generated by the system. [Doc. 7-3 at 5 ¶¶ 12-13; Doc. 7-7 at 2; Doc. 7-8 at 2].5
On October 20, 2016, Albertson filed the instant complaint against defendants, [Doc. 1], and on December 22, 2016, defendants filed the pending motion to compel arbitration, [Doc. 7], in which they request an order compelling arbitration and dismissing this case, or alternatively, staying judicial proceedings pending the arbitration. Defendants also seek to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in bringing their motion to compel. [Doc. 7-1 at 5, 14-15]. The pending motion, [Doc. 7], having been fully briefed, is now ripe for ruling.
Defendants argue that Albertson entered into a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate all disputes arising out of his employment with defendants, including the claims brought in this lawsuit, and that the Court should compel arbitration pursuant to this agreement. See [Docs. 7 & 9]. In response, Albertson argues thatdefendants have failed to "present a valid written agreement to arbitrate," that "he never signed or agreed to the arbitration agreement," that "no signed agreement is before the Court," and that his "simple review of an e-mail should not create a binding arbitration contract." [Doc. 8 at 4, 7]. He also argues that any arbitration agreement was unconscionable since "the parties did not have equal bargaining power, as [he] was required to give up the federal right to bring an employment discrimination jury trial while [d]efendants could never have brought a similar lawsuit against [him]," [id. at 7], and that there was no consideration between the parties, [id. at 9]. Albertson advances several other arguments opposing the motion, including that arbitration cannot be compelled because the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") is unconstitutional, the FAA does not apply to him, he has a fundamental right to a jury trial, and the arbitration agreement does not evince a transaction involving interstate commerce. [Id. at 10-16]. The Court will address each of these arguments.
There is a strong presumption in favor of arbitration under federal law and the FAA, which provides:
A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement inwriting to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
9 U.S.C. § 2. The arbitration agreement in this case is governed by the FAA. See Kong v. Allied Prof'l Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-2)) ("The FAA...
To continue reading
Request your trial