Maharaj v. Charter Commc'ns

• Decision Date: 27 October 2021
• Docket Number: 20-cv-00064-BAS-LL
• Parties: DEVANAN MAHARAJ, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

DEVANAN MAHARAJ, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant.

No. 20-cv-00064-BAS-LL

United States District Court, S.D. California

October 27, 2021

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS (ECF No. 49)

Hon Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge

Before this Court is Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's wage-and-hour claims, dismiss his class-action claims, and stay his Private Attorney General Act claim (“Motion”). (Mot., ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff opposed (Opp'n, ECF No. 51), Defendant replied (Reply, ECF No. 49), and, pursuant to this Court's October 6, 2021 order (Order, ECF No. 63), both parties provided supplemental briefing (Def.'s Supp. Mem., ECF No. 64; Pl.'s Supp. Mem., ECF No. 65). The Court finds the Motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion and STAYS the action.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Devanan Maharaj worked as a non-exempt maintenance technician (“Technician”) for Defendant Charter Communications, Inc., a telecommunications company. (Am Compl. ¶ 23, ECF No. 21.) He began his employment in approximately November 2000. (Id.) In approximately October 2017, Plaintiff injured his shoulder and consequently, went on short-term disability leave from approximately December 2017 through approximately May 2018. (Decl. of Keith Rasher, Esq. (“Rasher Decl.”), Ex. 1 at 8, ECF No. 49-2.)^[1] Though he returned, in August 2018, Plaintiff went back on leave and never again resumed his duties with Defendant. (Id.; Decl. of John Fries (“Fries Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 49-3.)^[2] While out on leave in 2019, Plaintiff submitted two applications for new positions with Defendant. (Fries Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8, Ex. 2.) Neither application was successful, and Plaintiff ultimately resigned in approximately November 2019. (Fries Decl. ¶ 5.)

On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in San Diego Superior Court, alleging pervasive violations of California wage-and-hour laws and regulations during the time that Defendant employed Plaintiff as a Technician. (See Compl., Ex. 1 to Notice of Removal (“Removal”), ECF No. 1-2.) In addition, Plaintiff alleged claims on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated Technicians and a claim pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) premised upon the same factual bases as his wage-and-hour claims. (Id.) On January 9, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (Removal, ECF No. 1.)

Approximately thirteen months following Removal, and after filing two motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 14, 23), propounding and responding to discovery (Declaration of David Lin, Esq. (“Lin Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-11, Exs. B-G, ECF No. 51-1), ^[3] and participating in court conferences and meet-and-confers with Plaintiff (id. ¶¶ 11, 13), Defendant submitted the present Motion on March 17, 2021 (Mot.). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff “expressly agreed to arbitrate all disputes” when he applied internally for new positions in 2019. (Mot. 3.) Specifically, Defendant avers that, when Plaintiff completed his applications through Defendant's online interface known as “BrassRing, ” Plaintiff agreed to (1) participate in Defendant's “employment-based legal dispute and resolution and arbitration program, ” entitled “Solution Channel, ” and (2) be bound by the terms of Defendant's Mutual Arbitration Agreement (“MAA”). (Id.; Fries Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9-11.)

A. BrassRing Interface

As mentioned above, while on leave but still employed as a Technician, Plaintiff applied for “Project Manager” and “Field Operations Supervisor” positions with Defendant in March and June of 2019, respectively. (Fries Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8, Ex. 2.) According to Defendant, during the application processes, BrassRing presented Plaintiff (as it would any applicant) with Defendant's “Solution Channel webpage.” (Webpage, Ex. 3 to Fries Decl., ECF No. 49-6; Id. ¶ 9.) BrassRing prompted Plaintiff:

Charter requires that all legal disputes involving employment with Charter or application for employment with Charter, be resolved through binding arbitration. Charter believes that arbitration is a fair and efficient way to resolve these disputes. Any person who submits an application for consideration by Charter agrees to be bound by the terms of Charter's Mutual Arbitration Agreement, where the person and Charter mutually agree to submit any covered claim, dispute or controversy to arbitration. By submitting an application for consideration you are agreeing to be bound by the Agreement.

(Webpage)

The interface does not permit an applicant to proceed unless they select one of two radio buttons-“I agree” or “I do not agree”-and then click “Save and continue.” (Fries Decl. ¶ 14.)

BrassRing warns that an applicant who selects the button entitled “I do not agree” “remov[es] [them]sel[ves] from the application process, and [Defendant] will not consider [their] application for employment.” (Id.; Webpage.) Plaintiff selected the “I agree” radio button each time he submitted applications for open positions, indicating that he agreed to be bound by the terms of the MAA. Defendant proffers Plaintiff's completed applications as proof that he did so. (Fries Decl., Exs. 1-2.)

BrassRing refers and provides links to Defendant's MAA and a second document, the link of which is entitled “Program Guidelines.” (Webpage.) An applicant can access, review, save, and print both documents through BrassRing. (Webpage.)

B. The MAA

The MAA starts with a notice instructing the applicant:

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING MUTUAL ARBITRATION AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) CAREFULLY. IF YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT (WHETHER YOU ARE AN APPLICANT, CURRENT EMPLOYEE, OR FORMER EMPLOYEE), YOU ARE AGREEING TO SUBMIT ANY COVERED EMPLOYMENT-RELATED DISPUTE BETWEEN YOU AND CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CHARTER) TO BINDING ARBITRATION. YOU ARE ALSO AGREEING TO WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO LITIGATE THE DISPUTE IN A COURT AND/OR HAVE THE DISPUTE DECIDED BY A JURY.

(MAA at 1, Ex. 4 to Fries Decl., ECF No. 49-7.)

The MAA states:

You and Charter mutually agree that, as a condition of Charter considering your application for employment and/or your employment with Charter, any dispute arising out of or relating to your pre-employment application and/or employment with Charter or the termination of that relationship, except as specifically excluded below, must be resolved through binding arbitration by a private and neutral arbitrator, to be jointly chosen by you and Charter.

(Id. § 1.)

Under the MAA, Defendant and applicant mutually agree to submit certain “covered claims” to arbitration. In pertinent part, Section B of the MAA defines “covered claims” as:

1. All disputes, claims, and controversies that could be asserted in court or before an administrative agency for which [the applicant] or Charter have an alleged cause of action related to pre-employment, employment, employment termination or post-employment-related claims whether the claims are denominated as tort, contract, common law, or statutory claims (whether under local, state or federal law), including without limitation claims for: . . . wage and hour-based claims including claims for unpaid wages, commissions, or other compensation or penalties (including meal and rest break claims, claims for inaccurate wage statements, claims for reimbursement of expenses) . . .; [and]

3. All disputes related to the arbitrability of any claim or controversy.

(Id. §§ B.1, B.3.)^[4]

The MAA contains a severability clause as well. (Id. § Q.) It provides, in pertinent part:

[I]f any portion or provision of this Agreement (including, without implication or limitation, any portion or provision of any section of this Agreement) is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction and cannot be modified to be legal, valid, or enforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected by such determination and shall be valid or enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law and said illegal, invalid, or unenforceable portion or provisions shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement. The only exception to this severability provision is, should the dispute involve a representative, collective or class action claim, and the representative, collective, and class action wavier (Section D) is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, then this Agreement (except for the parties' agreement to waive a jury trial) shall be null and void with respect to such representative, collective, and/or class claim only, and the dispute will not be arbitrable with respect to such claims.

Finally, the MAA contains an integration clause. (Id.§ P.) It expressly provides that the MAA “supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding on the subject[.]” (Id.)

Notably, for the purpose of deciding this Motion, the MAA does not contain an “opt-out” provision or otherwise confer upon applicants a right to “opt-out.” The MAA provides that an applicant becomes “legally bound by” its terms “as of the date [the applicant] consent[s] to participate in Solution Channel.” (Id. § V.)

C. Solution Channel Guidelines

The “Program Guidelines” document to which BrassRing refers is entitled “Solution Channel Guidelines.” (Guidelines, Ex. 5 to Fries Decl., ECF No. 49-8.) As the name suggests, the Solution Channel Guidelines delineate the rules and parameters for Defendant's Solution Channel program. (Fries Decl. ¶ 6.) Solution Channel “is a dispute resolution alternative [that] is the means by which a current employee, a former employee, an applicant for employment, or [Defendant] can efficiently and privately resolve covered...