Longnecker v. Am. Express Co.
Decision Date | 28 May 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 2:14–cv–0069–HRH.,2:14–cv–0069–HRH. |
Citation | 23 F.Supp.3d 1099 |
Parties | Jonathan LONGNECKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Charles P. Yezbak, III, Yezbak Law Offices, Nashville, TN, David William Ricksecker, Theodore Reid Coploff, Woodley & McGillivary, Washington, DC, Kaitlyn Alissa Redfield–Ortiz, Nicholas Jason Enoch, Lubin & Enoch PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs.
Dawn L. Dauphine, William J. Maledon, Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, AZ, Pamela S. Richardson, Richard G. Rosenblatt, August W. Heckman, III, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Princeton, NJ, Sharon A. Lisitzky, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendants.
Defendants move to compel arbitration.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was requested and has been heard.
Plaintiffs are Jonathan Longnecker, Erandi Acevedo, Jennifer Flynn, Bonita Kathol, and Janet Seitz.3 Defendants are American Express Company and AMEX Card Services Company.
Plaintiffs are former employees at defendants' Phoenix call center. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because defendants did not pay overtime for pre-shift work and work performed during meal breaks and because defendants miscalculated plaintiffs' rate of overtime pay by failing to include incentive payments and shift differentials in their regular rates of pay. Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claims on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees.
Defendants contend that plaintiffs are subject to defendants' Arbitration Policy, which was introduced in 2003. Since 2003, all new hires are required to sign an Employment Arbitration Acknowledgment Form as a condition of their commencement of employment.4 Longnecker, Acevedo, and Flynn were all hired after 2003, and all signed a New Hire Employment Arbitration Acknowledgment Form.5 The Acknowledgment Forms that Longnecker, Flynn, and Acevedo signed provide that the employee “acknowledge[s] that [he] ha[s] received and been given the opportunity to review the American Express Company Employment Arbitration Policy” and that the employee “understand[s] that arbitration is the final and exclusive forum for the resolution of all employment-related disputes between American Express and [the employee] that are based on a legal claim.”6 Longnecker, Flynn, and Acevedo do not dispute that they signed Acknowledgment Forms when they were hired.
In 2007, defendants extended the Arbitration Policy to employees who had been hired prior to 2003.7 These employees were given an opportunity to “opt out” of the Arbitration Policy.8 Plaintiff Seitz was hired by defendants prior to 2003 and thus was given the opportunity to “opt out” of the Arbitration Policy, but she did not do so.9
The Acknowledgment Forms also provide that the employee “understand[s] and agree[s] that [he] shall have no right or authority for any claims to be arbitrated on a class action basis or on bases involving claims brought in a representative capacity on behalf of any other employees or other persons similarly situated[.]”19 The Acknowledgment Forms further provide that the employee “understand[s] and agree[s] that American Express may amend or modify the Policy in the future with notice to me and that I will be bound by such modifications.”20 And finally, the Acknowledgment Forms provide that the employee “agree[s] to submit any and all employment related disputes based on a legal claim to arbitration, and agree[s] to waive [his] right to trial before a judge or jury in federal or state court in favor of arbitration under the Policy.”21
Defendants now move to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' FLSA claims.
“A motion to compel arbitration is decided according to the standard used by district courts in resolving summary judgment motions pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P.” Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, 823 F.Supp.2d 931, 939 (D.Ariz.2011). “However, federal courts are required to enforce agreements to arbitrate vigorously, according to their terms, and to resolve ambiguities in favor of arbitration.” Ross Sinclaire & Assocs. v. Premier Sr. Living, LLC, Case No. 11–CV–5104 YGR, 2012 WL 2501115, at *5 (N.D.Cal. June 27, 2012). “The [Federal Arbitration Act] ‘leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.’ ” G & K, P.A. v. Willett, Case No. CV12–0373–PHX–DGC, 2012 WL 1438474, at *2 (D.Ariz. April 25, 2012) (quoting Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985) ). “ ‘The court's role under the Act is therefore limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.’ ” Ross Sinclaire, 2012 WL 2501115, at *5 (quoting Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) ). “Generally, ‘the party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration.’ ” Id. (quoting Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 91, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) ). “However, where the issue is whether there exists an agreement to arbitrate, the party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement bears the burden of showing that it exists.” Id. “Only when there are no disputed issues of material fact as to the existence of a binding agreement should the court rule on the question of compelling arbitration.” Id. “When the party opposed to arbitration does so on the ground that no binding agreement to arbitrate exists, the district court should give the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.”Id.
There is no real dispute here that if there are valid and enforceable arbitration agreements, plaintiffs' FLSA claims fall within the scope of those agreements. Rather, the parties' dispute focuses on whether valid and...
To continue reading
Request your trial