Albertson v. Art Inst. of Atlanta, Corp.

Decision Date23 March 2017
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-03922-WSD-RGV
PartiesROBERT ALBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. ART INSTITUTE OF ATLANTA, a Georgia corporation, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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:

Purpose of Policy
This policy is intended to create the exclusive means by which all work-related disputes between [EDMC] (and its related entities or asserted agents . . .) and its employees will be promptly addressed and fairly resolved. No employee will be harassed, intimidated, discharged, disciplined or otherwise retaliated against in any manner for utilizing these Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures. Accepting or continuing employment with the Company after receipt of this Policy constitutes agreement to abide by its terms. The term "employee" as used in this Policy includes current employees, former employees and applicants for employment.
Authority
This [ADR] Policy is promulgated pursuant to, and governed by, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16.
Policy Coverage
This policy applies to the following individuals unless they are covered by (1) a collective bargaining agreement or (2) an employment agreement containing an arbitration provision:
• All full-time faculty and staff of EDMC and all of its subsidiaries employed on or after the Effective Date of this Policy. . . .
Effective Date
This Policy is effective on and after July 1, 2012.

[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:

EDMC has implemented an [ADR] Policy to promptly and fairly address all work-related disputes. This new policy is being distributed to all employees and allows for both informal and formal avenues for resolving concerns. This Policy is a term and condition of your continued employment with EDMC. Please click here to access the [ADR] Policy.
Please acknowledge by clicking here that you received, reviewed and agree to comply with the [ADR] Policy. Questions regarding the [ADR] Policy should be directed to your appropriate Human Resources or Employee Relations Representative.

[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:

Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy Acceptance
EDMC has implemented an [ADR] Policy to promptly and fairly address all work-related disputes. This policy allows for both informal and formal avenues for resolving concerns. Please click here to access the [ADR] Policy. This Policy is a term and condition of your continued employment with EDMC.
By clicking below, I agree to abide by the terms of the [ADR] Policy. I agree that if I have any dispute with the Company arising out of my employment, I will use the Company's [ADR] Policy as the exclusive means for resolving such dispute. I further acknowledge that I have been given the opportunity to review the terms of the Company's [ADR] Policy, as well as the opportunity to have any questions about the Policy answered.

[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, "Thank you. Your acceptance has been successfully recorded." [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.

II. DISCUSSION

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.

A. Legal Standard

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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT