Lopez v. Lidl U.S., LLC

• Decision Date: 29 March 2023
• Docket Number: 22-CV-4271 (ALC)
• Parties: SAMANTHA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, v. LIDL US, LLC d/b/a Lidl, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

1

SAMANTHA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA CollectivePlaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, v. LIDL US, LLC d/b/a Lidl, Defendant.

No. 22-CV-4271 (ALC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 29, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

PlaintiffSamantha Lopez(“Plaintiff” or “Lopez”), on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, brings this suit against Lidl US, LLC(“Defendant” and “Lidl”) for unpaid wages, including overtime premiums due to time-shaving pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,29 U.S.C §§ 201, et seq.(“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law(“NYLL”).Lidl now moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims on an individual basis.For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

I.Factual Background

A.Plaintiff's Claims

Lidl owns and operates a chain of supermarkets and operates approximately 24 stores in New York.(Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.)In December 2018, Lopez was hired by Defendant as a store associate at a Lidl store located at 283 Platinum Ave. on Staten Island.(Id.¶ 26.)She worked at this location until approximately mid-2019.(Id.)She was subsequently rehired in the same position at the same Staten Island store in November 2020.(Id.)Plaintiff maintains that she also worked at other Lidl locations, until she was terminated by Defendant in January 2021.(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that she, and other similarly situated employees, were forced to work through lunch and past their regularly scheduled shifts.(Id.¶¶ 27-30.)She alleges that her weekly paycheck was “shaved” by approximately two hours per week.(Id.¶ 31.)

B.The Offer Letters

As evidence of the parties' agreement to arbitrate, Defendant has proffered two offer letters, which it contends constitute enforceable arbitration agreements governing Plaintiff's claims.The first offer letter was extended to Lopez electronically through Lidl's human resources portal on November 8, 2018.(HarryDecl., ECF No. 13 ¶ 5;id., Ex. A., ECF No. 13-1.)The offer letter invites Plaintiff to work for Lidl as a part-time employee, paid at a rate of $15.25 per hour.(Id. at 1.)The letter indicates that Plaintiff was being offered employment as an “at will” employee and states that it “summarizes some of the important aspects of your proposed employment with Lidl U.S. Operations.”(Id.)Germane to the dispute at issue, the letter outlines Lidl's arbitration policy as follows:

“This offer is also contingent on your written acceptance of the Company's Arbitration Agreement.By executing the arbitration agreement, you and the Company agree that all disputes hereunder shall be exclusively resolved by final and binding arbitration in Arlington, Virginia or the state and county of your primary employment at the time of the act giving rise to the dispute if agreed to by both you and the Company.The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Employment Arbitration Rules & Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association(AAA).However, nothing herein shall prevent you from filing and pursuing proceedings with applicable federal, state or local administrative agencies.You specifically understand that by agreeing to arbitrate, you waive any right to trial by judge or jury in favor of having such disputes resolved by arbitration.”

(Id. at 2.)Plaintiff electronically accepted the terms of the offer letter on November 9, 2018.(Id., Ex. B, ECF No. 13-2.)

A second offer letter was extended to Lopez on October 7, 2019, which contains the same language regarding the agreement to arbitrate as the first offer letter.(Id., Ex. C, ECF No. 13-3 at 2.)Lopez electronically accepted the terms of the offer letter on October 7, 2019.(Id., Ex. D, ECF No. 13-4.)

II.The Motion to Compel Arbitration

Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration on July 22, 2022, arguing that the arbitration clauses in the offer letters constitute valid and enforceable arbitration agreements.(See generallyDef.'sMem., ECF No. 14.)Plaintiff filed her opposition on August 5, 2022, arguing that (1) the offer letters do not contain a clear and unequivocal arbitration agreement; (2) the offer letters are merely informational and disclaim any contractual nature; (3) the arbitration agreement requires written acceptance; (4) any agreement to arbitrate would not cover Plaintiff's claims; and (5)Defendant does not meet its burden of proof.(See generallyPl.'sMem., ECF No. 21.)Defendant filed a reply memorandum on August 19, 2022.(ECF No. 27.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Federal Arbitration Act(“FAA”) governs arbitration agreements.See9 U.S.C. § 2.There is “a strong federal policy favoring arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution.”Ragone v. Atl. Video at Manhattan Ctr., 595 F.3d 115, 121(2d Cir.2010)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted);see alsoArciniaga v. Gen. Motors Corp., 460 F.3d 231, 234(2d Cir.2006)(“[I]t is difficult to overstate the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration, and it is a policy we have often and emphatically applied.”(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

“In deciding whether claims are subject to arbitration, a court must consider (1) whether the parties have entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate, and, if so, (2) whether the dispute at issue comes within the scope of the arbitration agreement.”In re Am. Exp. Fin. Advisors Sec. Litig.,672 F.3d 113, 128(2d Cir.2011).

The moving party must “mak[e] a prima facie initial showing that an agreement to arbitrate existed,” and if the movant satisfies its burden “by a showing of evidentiary facts,” then the burden shifts to the non-movant to show the agreement is invalid or inapplicable.Marcus v. Collins, No. 16-CV-4221, 2016 WL 8201629, at *7(S.D.N.Y.Dec. 30, 2016)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In reviewing a motion to compel arbitration, “the court applies a standard similar to that applicable [to] a motion for summary judgment.”Bensadoun v. Jobe-Riat, 316 F.3d 171, 175(2d Cir.2003).For this reason, “it is proper (and in fact necessary) to consider.. .extrinsic evidence when faced with a motion to compel arbitration.”BS Sun Shipping Monrovia v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., No. 06-cv-839 (HB), 2006 WL 2265041, at *3 n.6(S.D.N.Y.Aug. 8, 2006)(citingSphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co., 263 F.3d 26, 32-33(2d Cir.2001)).“If the party seeking arbitration has substantiated the entitlement by a showing of evidentiary facts, the party opposing may not rest on a denial but must submit evidentiary facts showing that there is a dispute of fact to be tried.”Oppenheimer & Co. v. Neidhardt, 56 F.3d 352, 358(2d Cir.1995);accordSchnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110, 113(2d Cir.2012)(“Allegations related to the question of whether parties formed a valid arbitration agreement .... evaluated to determine whether they raise a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved by a fact-finder at trial.”). “If the Court determines “that an arbitration agreement is valid and the claim before it is arbitrable, it must stay or dismiss further judicial proceedings and order the parties to arbitrate.”Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., 96 F.Supp.3d 71, 75(S.D.N.Y.2015), aff'd, 659 Fed.Appx. 40(2d Cir.2016)(citingNunez v. Citibank, N.A., No. 08-CV-5398 (BSJ), 2009 WL 256107, *2(S.D.N.Y.Feb. 3, 2009)).

DISCUSSION

I.Whether an Agreement to Arbitrate Exists

Defendant argues that the arbitration clause contained in the two offer letters constitute valid agreements to arbitrate between Lidl and Plaintiff.(Def's Mem., ECF No. 14at 6-7.)Plaintiff argues that the offer letters do not contain clear and unequivocal agreements to arbitrate because (1) the arbitration clauses require “written acceptance” and (2) the offer letters merely provide a summary of the arbitration terms but do not constitute the company's actual arbitration agreement.(Pl.'sMem., ECF No. 21 at 4-10.)

Arbitration agreements are treated as any other contract; thus, they are governed by state law principles of contract formation.Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110, 119(2d Cir.2012).It is “well settled” under New York law that arbitration will not be compelled absent the parties' “clear, explicit and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate.”Manigault v. Macy's E., LLC, 318 Fed.Appx. 6, 7-8(2d Cir.2009).“To form a contract in New York, there must be “an offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent and intent to be bound A contract may be formed by words or by conduct that demonstrate the parties' mutual assent.”Pettersen v. Volcano Corp., No. 18-CV-03021(PKC)(PK), 2020 WL 6323937, at *3(E.D.N.Y.Sept. 8, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 6323122(E.D.N.Y.Oct. 27, 2020)(citingManigault v. Macy's E., LLC, 318 Fed.Appx. 6, 8(2d Cir.2009)).

The Court finds that the arbitration clauses contained in the offer letters constitute valid agreements to arbitrate.The offer letters clearly state that Plaintiff's employment was conditioned on her acceptance of the Lidl's arbitration agreement.(Harry Decl., Ex. A, ECFNo. 13-1at 2(“This offer is also contingent on your written acceptance of the Company's Arbitration Agreement.”)They explain that “all disputes hereunder shall exclusively” be resolved according to the “Employment Arbitration Rules & Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association.”(Id.)The language also advises Plaintiff that the arbitration shall take place in Arlington, Virginia or the state and county of her primary employment.(Id.)Defendant also shows that Plaintiff accepted the terms of the offer letters through electronic acceptance and that she commenced her employment at Lidl....