Hamilton v. Family Dollar Stores of Mo., LLC
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-cv-00028-RK |
| Parties | ALLIE HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF MISSOURI, LLC, FAMILY DOLLAR, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Before the court is Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC, and Family Dollar, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss, or Alternatively Stay Action. (Doc. 15.) The motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 16, 20, 26.) After careful consideration and for the reasons explained below Defendants' motion to compel arbitration (Doc. 15) is GRANTED as to the most recent 2020 arbitration agreement. Accordingly, pursuant to 9 U.S.C § 3, this case is STAYED pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings.
Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC, and Family Dollar, Inc. (collectively, “Family Dollar”) are separate legal entities but are “part of a single, integrated enterprise” with “highly interrelated” business operations. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 5, 9.) As part of its onboarding process, Family Dollar trained new hires and informed them of company policies through various modules in an online interface called Family Dollar University (“FDU”). (Doc. 16-1 at 3, ¶ 8.) Employees accessed FDU modules through a unique user ID and password. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Employees created their own passwords and were prohibited from sharing them with anyone else. (Id.) As they navigated FDU, the system recorded the time and date at which employees completed the various modules, including one titled, “Open Door and Arbitration at Family Dollar” (“arbitration module”). (Id. at ¶ 11.)
The arbitration module of FDU included access to an arbitration agreement (“2014 Arbitration Agreement”) for employees to review and ultimately accept. (Id. at ¶ 7.) To complete the arbitration module, employees had to click three boxes: first, to download the 2014 Arbitration Agreement; second, to indicate the employee had reviewed the agreement; and third, to acknowledge the employee had read and is ready to accept the agreement. (Id. at ¶ 8.) To accept the 2014 Arbitration Agreement through the arbitration module, the employee had to click a button labeled, “I ACCEPT,” located under a bolded acknowledgment. (Id. at ¶ 10; 3 at ¶ 11; see also Id. at 12.) FDU records the date and time the employee clicks the “I ACCEPT” button, completing the arbitration module. (Id. at 4, ¶ 11.)
Family Dollar hired Plaintiff around June 1, 2014. (See Doc. 20-1 at 1, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff attests she “had not heard of” and “was not aware of” an arbitration agreement with Family Dollar prior to the instant lawsuit. (Id. at 1, ¶¶ 3-5.) More specifically, Plaintiff attests she “do[es] not recall” whether she completed any online training when she was hired by Family Dollar in 2014, and that the hiring manager at the time “had a practice of completing what [the manager] referred to as ‘easy paperwork' to expedite” the hiring process. (Id. at 2, ¶¶ 9, 10.) In support of its motion to compel arbitration, however, Family Dollar provided electronic records from FD U.Specifically, the records show that Plaintiff accessed the arbitration module on June 9, 2014, and that the “accept” button within the arbitration module was clicked under Plaintiff's user ID at 1:00:14 PM on the same day. (See Doc. 16-1 at 4, ¶ 12; id. at 19.)
In October 2020, Family Dollar sought to replace the 2014 Arbitration Agreement with a new arbitration agreement (“2020 Arbitration Agreement”). (See Doc. 16-2 at 5.) Family Dollar attempted to notify employees of the 2020 Arbitration Agreement in three ways. First, Family Dollar tasked managers - including Plaintiff[1] - with posting a flyer announcing the new 2020 Arbitration Agreement in the break area of the store. (Doc. 16-1 at 5, ¶¶ 14, 15, 17.) Second, Family Dollar had “arbitration agreement mailers” (including a memorandum, FAQs, and the 2020 Arbitration Agreement itself[2]) sent to its employees via USPS first-class mail. (Doc. 16-2 at 2, 431.) Third, Family Dollar placed a notice regarding the 2020 Arbitration Agreement on the bottom of each employee's pay-stubs for a period of time. (See Doc. 16-3 at 5-8.) All three notices stated that the new arbitration agreement would become effective on December 10, 2020, and would apply to anyone employed by Family Dollar on that date. (Docs. 16-1 at 22; 16-2 at 5, 6; 16-3 at 5-8.)
As to the arbitration flyer, Family Dollar submitted electronic records showing the arbitration-flyer task was marked as completed on “2020-10-27” by “fdstores/0978559,” identifying Plaintiff's employee number. (Doc. 16-1 at 5, ¶ 18; id. at 24.) In her affidavit opposing Family Dollar's motion to compel, Plaintiff attests only that she “do[es] not recall hanging a sign that mentioned an arbitration agreement,” and that she regularly had an “assistant manager electronically sign off on tasks for [her]” on her days off work. (Doc. 20-1 at 2, ¶¶ 15, 19.)
As to the arbitration agreement mailers, Toppan Merrill (tasked by Family Dollar with preparing and sending the mailers) conducted a National Change of Address search and updated addresses for more than 200,000 individuals whom Family Dollar had provided last known addresses. (Doc. 16-2 at 2, ¶ 3.) Toppan Merrill sent the arbitration mailers via USPS first-class mail on October 23, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Records submitted in support of Family Dollar's motion to compel indicate the mailer was both sent to Plaintiff and, at least through December 23, 2020, the mailer sent to Plaintiff was not returned as undeliverable or for any other reason. Plaintiff attests, however, that she did not receive any arbitration agreement in the mail, whether from Family Dollar or anyone else. (Doc. 20-1 at 2, ¶ 20.) Finally, as to the notices placed on employees' pay-stubs, Plaintiff attests she never looked at her pay-stubs and did not have a reason to do so because she was a salaried employee paid by direct deposit. (Id. at 2-3, ¶¶ 21-24.)
On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff contacted the Family Dollar's Human Resources Department to allege claims of discrimination and harassment. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 126.) Family Dollar terminated Plaintiff's employment the next day. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 127.) On November 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against Family Dollar in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, alleging claims of race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010 et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (See Doc. 1-1 at 2-21.) Family Dollar removed the case to federal court on January 18, 2022, under federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332). (Doc. 1.)
Family Dollar seeks to compel Plaintiff to arbitration pursuant to either the 2014 or 2020 Arbitration Agreement.
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), its primary substantive provision, states:
A written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . 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. “Under § 3, a party may apply to a federal court for a stay of the trial of an action ‘upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration.'” RentA-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68 (2010) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 3); cf. Sommerfeld v. Adesta, LLC, 2 F.4th 758, 762 (8th Cir. 2021) (recognizing, “‘district courts may, in their discretion, dismiss an action rather than stay it where it is clear the entire controversy between the parties will be resolved by arbitration'”) (quoting Green v. SuperShuttle Int'l, Inc., 653 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 2011)). “Under § 4, a party ‘aggrieved' by the failure of another party ‘to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration' may petition a federal court ‘for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.'” Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 68 (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 4). In whole, the FAA “reflect[s] . . . a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration.” Driver v. BPV Mkt. Place Inv'rs, L.L.C., No. 4-17-cv-1607-CAS, 2018 WL 3363795, *4 (E.D. Mo. July 10, 2018) (quoting AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011)) (other citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Ultimately, the party seeking to compel litigation to arbitration “bears the burden of proving that there was a valid and enforceable agreement.” Duncan v. Int'l Markets Live, Inc., 20 F. 4th 400, 402 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). In deciding a motion to compel arbitration, similar to the standard on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the record in a light most favorable to the non-movant. Id. at 403.
As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he FAA reflects the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract,” Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 67. Accordingly, when considering a motion to compel arbitration, the only relevant inquiries are “(1) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement and (2) whether the particular dispute falls within the terms of the agreement.” Faber v. Menard, Inc., 367 F.3d 1048, 1052 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
As a matter of contract, just as parties can agree to arbitrate disputes that may arise between them in the first instance parties may also “agree to have arbitrators decide threshold questions of arbitrability.” Green, 653 F.3d at 769 (citation omitted); accord Henry Schein, Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial