De Dios v. Brand Energy & Infrastructure Servs., C 18-4011-MWB
Decision Date | 13 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. C 18-4011-MWB,C 18-4011-MWB |
Parties | SAMUEL DE DIOS, Plaintiff, v. BRAND ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, Defendant. |
Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa |
In this action, originally filed in the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County and removed to this court, plaintiff Samuel De Dios claims that his former employer, defendant Brand Energy And Infrastructure Services, wrongfully terminated him for asserting rights under the Iowa Workers' Compensation Act. Brand has moved dismiss or, alternatively, to stay, and compel arbitration of De Dios's claim pursuant to an Agreement to Arbitrate in De Dios's employment application. De Dios contends that the court should not enforce the Agreement to Arbitrate, because it is unconscionable, where signing it was a condition of his employment and it binds only him, and because there is no consideration for it. De Dios also seeks leave to conduct discovery to further develop the factual record on the pending Motion To Compel Arbitration.
As part of his application for employment with Brand, De Dios signed the following Agreement to Arbitrate:
Defendant's Exhibit A, Excerpt of Application, page 2 of 4.
On the date of his application, De Dios also signed a Brand Dispute Resolution Program Acknowledgement, which stated the following:
Defendant's Exhibit B, Acknowledgement.
The Brand Dispute Resolution Program provides for a four-step dispute resolution process. Defendant's Exhibit D, Dispute Resolution Program. Step Four of the process provides for arbitration, as follows:
Defendant's Exhibit D, Dispute Resolution Program, 5 (emphasis in the original). The Program also provides that the employee "must pay a $50 processing fee to take your legal dispute to an outside resolution process, such as arbitration," but that "Brand will pay any additional administrative costs associated with the arbitration that exceed this $50 fee." Id.
De Dios alleges, and Brand admits, that, on April 8, 2016, De Dios was assigned by Brand to work on a construction site located on the private property of CF Industries. To enter the property, he had to drive past a security gate and a security guard. De Dios alleges, and Brand admits, that, after entering the property, a vehicle driven by Jonathan Elizondo crashed into the back of his vehicle. De Dios alleges that the collision damaged his vehicle and caused him injuries, including a lower back injury, which Brand denies. De Dios reported the collision and his work injury to Brand's safety manager, Ismael Barba. Brand admits that De Dios reported an off-the-job injury. De Dios alleges that Brand authorized him to choose a medical provider to provide care for the work injury, which Brand denies. De Dios chose to be treated at St. Luke's Hospital. After treating De Dios in the emergency room at St. Luke's Hospital, the ER doctor ordered De Dios not to return to work until April 11, 2016. Brand admits these allegations, but denies the treatment was for a work injury.
De Dios alleges that, on April 11, 2016, he returned to work with Brand, but his back pain worsened, which Brand denies. De Dios alleges that, on April 14, 2016, Brand sent him home because of his work injury, but Brand admits only that it allowed De Dios to go home on April 14, 2016, after De Dios stated to the Safety Manager, upon arrival, that he was not ready to return to work. De Dios alleges that, on April 14, 2016, Brand authorized De Dios to choose a medical provider to care for his work injury, which Brand denies. De Dios alleges that, on April 15, 2016, his family doctor, Alisa M. Olson, DO, treated him for the work injury, which Brand denies for lack of information. De Dios alleges that, also on April 15, 2016, Dr. Olson wrote a letter to Brand regarding De Dios's work injury, which Brand also denies for lack of information. De Dios alleges that, on April 15, 2016, he asserted his rights under the Iowa Workers' Compensation Act, which Brand denies. De Dios contends that, on April 19, 2016, Brand notified him that it had decided to terminate his employment. Brand admits that it terminated De Dios's employment, but contends that the termination, effective May 1, 2016, was for job abandonment.
De Dios filed his Petition against Brand in state court on January 4, 2018, alleging wrongful termination for asserting rights under the Iowa Workers' Compensation Act. On February 13, 2018, Brand removed this action to this court and filed its Answer denying De Dios's claim and asserting, among other affirmative defenses, that De Dios's claim was subject to an agreement to submit it to binding arbitration.
On February 20, 2018, Brand filed the Motion To Dismiss And/Or Stay And Compel Arbitration (Motion To Compel Arbitration) now before me. On March 30, 2013, De Dios filed his Resistance To Motion To Compel Arbitration. Brand filed its Reply on April 4, 2018. A week later, on April 11, 2018, De Dios filed his Motion ToConduct Discovery, which is also now before me. On April 24, 2018, Brand filed its Resistance to that motion. De Dios filed no reply.
United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney held a scheduling conference with the parties on May 2, 2018. On May 17, 2018, she entered a text order holding in abeyance issuance of a scheduling order and discovery plan, as discussed at the May 2, 2018, scheduling conference, pending my ruling on Brand's Motion To Compel Arbitration and De Dios's Motion To Conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial