Mattson v. WTS Int'l, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 March 2021
• Docket Number: Case No: 8:20-cv-1245-CEH-AEP
• Parties: AUSTYN MATTSON, SETH MUSSELMAN, JASON RANDO and DANIEL RIVERA, Plaintiffs, v. WTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

AUSTYN MATTSON, SETH MUSSELMAN, JASON RANDO and DANIEL RIVERA, Plaintiffs, v. WTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.

Case No: 8:20-cv-1245-CEH-AEP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

March 20, 2021

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant WTS International, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 16). Defendant requests the Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiffs to pursue their claims in binding arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum and affidavits in opposition contending they never knowingly signed an arbitration agreement or agreed to arbitrate. Doc. 18. The Court heard argument on November 16, 2020. At the hearing, Defendant WTS requested leave to file a reply to address the arguments raised in Plaintiffs' response, which the Court granted. Following the hearing, Defendant filed the affidavit of Marco Chavez, Defendant's system administrator for its electronic onboarding platform for employees. Doc. 30. Plaintiffs filed a response to the Chavez affidavit. Doc. 34. The Court, having considered the motion, heard argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, will grant Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiffs' Claims

Plaintiffs, Austyn Mattson ("Mattson"), Seth Musselman ("Musselman"), Jason Rando ("Rando"), and Daniel Rivera ("Rivera") (collectively "Plaintiffs"), are four bartenders formerly employed by Defendant, WTS International, Inc. ("WTS"). Doc. 12. WTS is a corporation organized under the laws of Washington, D.C., with its principal place of business in Rockville, Maryland. Id. ¶ 16. On May 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this action against WTS. Doc. 1. On July 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a three-count Amended Complaint against WTS, alleging tortious interference, defamation per se, and declaratory relief, arising out of their termination and WTS's subsequent attempts to block Plaintiffs from seeking employment elsewhere due to non-compete agreements purportedly signed by Plaintiffs when they were hired by WTS. Doc. 12.

Plaintiffs allege that The Lagoon at Epperson ("Epperson") is a master planned community by Metro Development Group doing business as Metro Places ("Metro Places") located in Wesley Chapel, Florida. Id. ¶ 20. Epperson contains a number of amenities for its residents, including two bars: The Sandbar and the Cabana Bar, which Defendant WTS managed. Id. ¶¶ 21, 22. In March 2020, Metro Places gave notice to WTS of its intent to terminate their business relationship. Id. ¶ 23. During the same time, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, WTS laid off its bar staff, including Plaintiffs, at the Epperson location. Id. ¶ 24. On March 18, 2020, WTS advisedPlaintiffs not to report to work until further notice. Id. ¶ 25. WTS also informed Plaintiffs that they were contractually prohibited from working in the Epperson Community. Id.

After Metro Places terminated its relationship with WTS, Metro Places engaged a new company to plan for reopening and to operate the bars and restaurants. Id. ¶ 38. When Plaintiffs heard that the bars were under new management and would be hiring, they inquired about employment. Id. ¶ 41. When WTS learned that Plaintiffs were inquiring about employment, WTS told Metro Places and the new management company that Plaintiffs were subject to non-compete agreements and demanded that Metro Places or the new management company pay a fee to "buy out" the Plaintiffs' non-compete agreements. Id. ¶¶ 42-44. By the terms of the proposed non-compete agreements, Plaintiffs were restricted from working for any bar/establishment located within Epperson community, from working for any bar/restaurant affiliated with Metro Places, and restricted from providing any services to customers Plaintiffs served while working in Epperson community. Id. ¶ 48. Plaintiffs deny signing or accepting the non-compete agreements. Id. ¶ 46.

B. Motion to Compel and Response

WTS contends that Plaintiffs signed binding arbitration agreements when they were hired. WTS attaches to its motion four arbitration agreements, each one containing an electronic signature of one of the four Plaintiffs along with a date and time next to each individual's name. Doc. 16-1. WTS submits that the arbitration agreements are valid under Florida law, and it argues that the agreements are notprocedurally or substantively unconscionable. WTS contends that Plaintiffs' claims fall squarely within the claims covered by the arbitration agreement, which requires arbitration of claims related in any manner to the individual's employment, including "claims or charges based upon federal or state statutes;" "claims based upon tort or contract laws or common law;" and claims based upon "any other federal or state or local law affecting employment in any manner whatsoever." See e.g., Doc. 16-1 at 1. WTS requests this Court dismiss, rather than stay, Plaintiffs' claims and compel Plaintiffs to pursue their claims through arbitration.

Plaintiffs respond in opposition, arguing they never knowingly signed an arbitration agreement. Doc. 18. Plaintiffs each submit an affidavit in opposition to the motion to compel stating the Plaintiff:

• was previously employed by WTS International, Inc.

• never signed an arbitration agreement with WTS in pen and on paper

• never knowingly signed an arbitration agreement with WTS electronically

• has no recollection of ever checking a box on a document agreeing to arbitrate any disputes with WTS

• never received a copy of any arbitration agreement with WTS and does not have a copy of any such document

• was never advised that he would have to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment with WTS

• would have exercised the right to reject the arbitration agreement if he had signed the agreement and been aware of its terms

Doc. 18-1 at 1-4.

In their response, Plaintiffs argue the authenticity of the arbitration agreements is suspect, and they criticize WTS's failure to use a more secure system that would imprint an electronic document with data such as unique digital signatures or IP addresses. Plaintiffs hypothesize that it is just as likely that WTS personnelelectronically checked the boxes acknowledging and signing the arbitration agreements. Although Plaintiffs do not explicitly argue waiver, they further contend arbitration was never raised by WTS until the day its response to the amended complaint was due.

WTS replied by filing the affidavit of Marco Chavez, ("Chavez") WTS's asset manager who serves as the system administrator for iCIMS, which is the online recruitment platform WTS uses to recruit, hire, train, and onboard all incoming employees. Doc. 30. Chavez declares that WTS has used the iCIMS platform for ten years, and the only way a potential job candidate becomes employed by WTS is through the iCIMS system. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. When a candidate applies for a job, the candidate is required to enter an email address, and then the candidate creates a unique profile with a username, password, and contact information. Id. ¶ 5. After creating a profile, the candidate completes the employment application and must select the "I Accept" checkbox at the bottom of the application in order to submit the application. Id. The form explains that "[b]y checking the box above you are applying your signature . . . ." Id. If WTS chooses to hire the candidate, the candidate will receive a link to access an offer letter in iCIMS using the same username and password created by the candidate when applying. Id. If at any time the potential job candidate wants to change the username and/or password, they are able to do so from the iCIMS Dashboard by selecting update profile or requesting a password reset by WTS. Id. If a reset is requested, the candidate is sent a form email with a generic password and instructions to reset the password to one of their choice. Id.

A candidate who chooses to accept the job offer is given the ability to review the electronic offer letter in iCIMS and accept via electronic signature. Id. To accept, the candidate is directed to check two separate boxes at the bottom of the application and submit the offer letter by choosing the button labeled "sign & submit." Id. After the candidate accepts the offer letter, WTS is notified of the acceptance through iCIMS. Id. WTS then sends a link to the candidate to access the onboarding materials in iCIMS using the same username and password. Id.

Once the candidate begins the onboarding process, the candidate must confirm his profile page information is accurate, and from there the candidate is directed to the "Welcome Aboard" page. Id. There are nine tasks that must be completed in order to complete the onboarding process. Id. Specifically, the candidate must review, complete, and accept, by checking the "I Accept" checkbox, the following: (1) direct deposit form; (2) drug test acknowledgement; (3) federal I9 form; (4) federal W4 form; (5) WTS employment application (if not already completed): (6) WTS restrictive covenants; (7) antiharassment acknowledgement; (8) WTS binding arbitration agreement; and (9) WTS handbook acknowledgement. Id. As a candidate completes each task, the onboarding page is updated accordingly. Id. The candidate must complete all nine tasks for the onboarding process to be completed, and the candidate will not be able to begin their employment with WTS until the onboarding process is complete. Id.

Chavez reviewed the iCIM records for Mattson, Musselman, Rando, and Rivera. Id. ¶ 6. He confirmed that Plaintiffs were employed in the State of Florida andeach signed an arbitration agreement before starting their employment with WTS. Id. Attached to his affidavit are screen shots of documents showing the onboarding process and documents created in iCIMS specific to each Plaintiff along with an audit trail of the document. Docs. 30-1-30-22.

Mattson's electronic signature appears on the arbitration agreement with the date and time of May 21, 2019 at 2:10...