Gonzalez v. Ge Group Administrators, Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.03-30264-MAP.,CIV.A.03-30264-MAP.
• Citation: 321 F.Supp.2d 165
• Parties: Serafin GONZALEZ, Plaintiff v. GE GROUP ADMINISTRATORS, INC.; GE Financial Assurance, Inc.; GE Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc.; Cynthia Pelletier; and Jane Lemanski, Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

321 F.Supp.2d 165

Serafin GONZALEZ, Plaintiff v. GE GROUP ADMINISTRATORS, INC.; GE Financial Assurance, Inc.; GE Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc.; Cynthia Pelletier; and Jane Lemanski, Defendants

No. CIV.A.03-30264-MAP.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 9, 2004.

Wilfred J. Benoit, Jr., for GE Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc., GE Group Administrators, Inc., Cynthia Pelletier, Defendants.

Anne M. Gaeta, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Boston, MA, David E. Nagle, LeClair Ryan, Richmond, VA, for GE Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc., GE Group Administrators, Inc., Cynthia Pelletier, Defendants.

Michael O. Shea, Law Office of Michael O. Shea, Springfield, for Serafin Gonzalez, Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION FILED ON BEHALF OF GE GROUP ADMINISTRATORS, INC., GE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC. AND CYNTHIA PELLETIER (Document No. 12)

NEIMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

In this employment discrimination action brought by Serafin Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), three defendants — GE Group Administrators, Inc. and GE Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc. (together "GE"), along with Plaintiff's manager, Cynthia Pelletier, (collectively "Defendants") — have moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. Although the complaint purports to name two other defendants, one, GE Financial Assurance, Inc., does not exist (see Defendants' Answer at 1 n. 1), and the other, Jane Lemanski, has not been served.¹

Defendants' motion has been referred to this court as a non-dispositive pre-trial matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules for United States Magistrate Judges in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Third Millennium Tech Inc. v. Bentley Sys., Inc., No. 03-1145-JTM, 2003 WL 22003097, at *1-2 (D.Kan. Aug.21, 2003) ("The district courts that have considered the nature of an order to stay proceedings pending arbitration and to compel arbitration have concluded that these are non-dispositive orders.") (collecting cases). For the reasons described below, Defendants' motion will be allowed.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff instituted this action on November 6, 2003, and filed an Amended Complaint on January 28, 2004. The Amended Complaint contains four causes of action: Counts I and II allege Defendants engaged in "unlawful employment practices" — i.e., "sexual harassment," "gender discrimination," "race/color/ethnicity/national origin/ancestry discrimination" and "retaliation" — in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and Counts III and IV make similar claims under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B ("chapter 151B"). In due course, Defendants filed the instant motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, Plaintiff tendered an opposition, Defendants filed a reply brief, Plaintiff submitted a supplemental memorandum in opposition, and the court heard oral argument.

The following facts are undisputed for purposes of Defendants' motion. Plaintiff began full-time employment with GE as a Trainer/Auditor on or about March 5, 2001. (Amended Complaint ¶ 8.) Plaintiff claims he was subsequently subjected to unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation, including sexual harassment initiated by both Pelletier, his manager, and Jane Lemanski, his supervisor. (See id. ¶¶ 10-20.) Plaintiff also alleges that he was wrongly suspended and terminated in May of 2002, and that he was otherwise adversely harmed by Defendants' discriminatory practices. (Id. ¶ 22.) Thereafter, "Plaintiff timely filed ... state and federal discrimination claims with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which were dual filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and withdrawn from the MCAD and EEOC." (Id. ¶ 27.)

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that a stay should be ordered and arbitration compelled pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the FAA. In addressing these arguments, the court is mindful of the unabated public policy favoring arbitration, see Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 133 F.3d 141, 148 (1st Cir.1998) (citing Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985), and Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)), and the fact that the FAA was enacted in order to overcome judicial hostility towards arbitration, see Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 219-21 and n. 6, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985).

Section 4 of the FAA directs a court, in appropriate circumstances, to issue an order compelling the parties to arbitrate a dispute when one party has failed, neglected or refused to arbitrate in accordance with his agreement to do so.² Section 3, in turn, allows a court to stay judicial proceedings when any issue therein is "referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing ... until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 3. As District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton has observed, in order to compel arbitration pursuant to section 4 and "stay court proceedings pursuant to [section] 3, this Court must find that 1) there exists a written agreement to arbitrate, 2) the dispute in question falls within the scope of that agreement, and 3) the party seeking arbitration has not waived its right to arbitration." Bowlby v. Carter Mfg. Corp., 138 F.Supp.2d 182, 186-87 (D.Mass.2001) (citing Brennan v. King, 139 F.3d 258, 263-67 (1st Cir.1998)). Here, Defendants assert, all three conditions are present. The court agrees.

A. Existence of a Written Arbitration Agreement

With regard to the first condition, the court finds that a written arbitration agreement clearly exists. On February 20, 2001, before he began his employment, Plaintiff signed a one-page document entitled "Acknowledgment: Conditions of Employment" which stated that his offer of employment was "contingent upon [his] acceptance of the conditions of employment described below." (Document No. 13 ("Defendants' Brief"), Exhibit 1A.) The first condition conspicuously indicated, as follows, that arbitration was the chosen method to resolve certain disputes:

1. I acknowledge that the offer of employment made to me is contingent upon meeting all employment requirements, including but not limited to the following:

. . . . .

That I have received and reviewed a copy of the RESOLVE Program Handbook". I agree to resolve disputes in accordance with the terms of the "RESOLVE Guidelines" for Employees of GE Capital and its subsidiaries. Thus, if my date of hire ... is on or after June 1, 2000, I agree as a condition of employment, to waive the right to pursue covered claims (as defined in the glossary in the RESOLVE Guidelines and Handbook) in court and to accept an arbitrator's award as the final, binding and exclusive determination of all covered claims.

(Id. (emphasis added).) In other words, Plaintiff agreed as a condition of his employment to resolve disputes of "covered claims" in accordance with the RESOLVE Guidelines, to waive the right to pursue such claims in court and to accept an arbitrator's award with respect to such claims as final.

The RESOLVE Guidelines confirm the fact that a written arbitration agreement exists. They begin with the following statement: "THIS PROCEDURE IS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR THE RESOLUTION OF EMPLOYMENT DISPUTES, WRITTEN PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, 9 U.S.C.A. SECTIONS 1-14." (Id., Exhibit 1B at 2.) The Guidelines go on to state that "[n]ew employees agree, as a condition of employment, to participate in RESOLVE as the exclusive alternative to filing covered claims in court." (Id. at 6.) Continuing, the Guidelines provide that "[n]ew employees who have not resolved their covered claims with the Company before the arbitration level of RESOLVE must proceed to arbitration and the arbitrator's decision shall be the final, binding, and exclusive determination of all covered claims." (Id.)

Plaintiff does not dispute that a written arbitration exists or that he signed the acknowledgment form. Rather, he offers four arguments why the agreement is not valid: (1) he did not understand the agreement's effect and does not recall getting a copy; (2) the agreement inadequately waived his right to a judicial forum; (3) the agreement lacks consideration; and (4) if the agreement were enforced, he would lose the right to a jury trial, be deprived of the full damages available to him pursuant to Title VII and chapter 151B and be subjected to limited discovery. The court finds none of these arguments persuasive.

Plaintiff's first argument (that he did not understand the agreement's effect and does not recall getting a copy) is undercut by the acknowledgment form itself which states that Plaintiff had "received and reviewed a copy of the `RESOLVE Program Handbook'" and "accept[ed] the conditions of employment" which the form described. (Id., Exhibit 1A.) Moreover, the only First Circuit case Plaintiff cites supports Defendants' position, i.e., that, objectively, Plaintiff understood the written arbitration agreement which he signed. See Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 170 F.3d 1, 21 n. 17 (1st Cir.1999) (citing Massachusetts' traditional rule described in Tiffany v. Sturbridge Camping Club, Inc., 32 Mass.App.Ct. 173, 587 N.E.2d 238, 240 n. 5 (1992) that one is assumed to have read and understood the terms of a contract he signs). Although the court in Rosenberg acknowledged that there must be "some minimal level of notice to the employee that statutory claims are subject to arbitration," it eschewed a "subjective" notice standard ...