Montgomery v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
| Decision Date | 15 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-19948-FLW-DEA |
| Parties | BERNADETTE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION*
:
Plaintiff Bernadette Montgomery (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (hereinafter, "Defendant"), asserting claims of hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation under state and federal statutes. In the instant matter, Defendant moves to stay the case and compel arbitration, arguing that Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration clause in the Bristol-Myers Squibb Mutual Arbitration Agreement (hereinafter, the "Arbitration Agreement" or "Agreement"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement between the parties exists, and, therefore, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff began work as a contractor for the Hopewell Medical Department Occupational Health Facility around January 2018. (Civil Action Complaint ("Complaint"), ¶ 8.) In June 2018, Defendant extended an offer to hire Plaintiff as a permanent Registered Nurse at Defendant's Lawrenceville Medical Occupational Health Department. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) An Offer Letter thatPlaintiff received on June 1, 2018 explained that, as a condition of Plaintiff's hire and employment with Defendant, she would be required to read, complete, and electronically sign a series of onboarding documents. (Offer Letter, at 2.) The Offer Letter specifically contained the following text conditioning Plaintiff's employment on her assent to arbitrate claims relating to the parties' relationship:
Employment offer conditioned on acceptance of Agreements: In exchange for this offer of employment, the benefits outlined in this offer letter, your eligibility to participate in the BMS annual bonus plan ..., and as a condition of employment, you will be required to electronically execute two Agreements, the Employee confidential information and noncompetition agreement, and mutual arbitration agreement located on the Onboarding Portal. Samples of these two agreements are also enclosed for your review as you consider this offer. Please review these agreements carefully and if you intend to become employed by BMS, electronically sign these documents once you receive the link to the Onboarding Portal prior to your first day of work. Although your electronic signature on the Agreements is required, if you begin employment with the company without signing the agreements, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms of both Agreements and this offer letter. Your offer letter should be signed and returned to BMS on your first day of employment as instructed below. (Id.)
The Offer Letter provided Plaintiff until June 6, 2018 to accept it, but Plaintiff electronically signed it on June 1, 2018, the day she received it. (Declaration of Helen Baus in Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration ("Baus"), ¶ 3.) Although the Offer Letter states that a sample of the Arbitration Agreement would be enclosed, Plaintiff alleges that it did not come with any such sample of the Agreement. (Certification of Bernadette Montgomery ("Montgomery"), ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that she was not offered access to the Arbitration Agreement until June 11, 2018, when it became available on an online portal. (Montgomery, ¶ 8.) That same day, June 11, 2018, Plaintiff electronically signed the Arbitration Agreement. (Baus, ¶ 4.) In doing so, Plaintiff accepted the following terms agreeing to resolve all covered disputes with the Defendant by arbitration:
[A]ll disputes, claims, complaints, or controversies ("Claims") that you have now, or at any time in the future may have, against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company... including claims relating to... wrongful discharge, discrimination and/or harassment claims, retaliation claims... and any other claim under any federal, state or local statute... arising out of and/or directly or indirectly related to your application for employment with the Company, and/or your employment with the Company, and/or the terms and conditions of your employment with the Company, and/or termination of your employment with the Company (collectively "Covered Claims"), are subject to arbitration pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and will be resolved by arbitration and NOT by a court or jury. THE PARTIES HEREBY FOREVER WAIVE AND GIVE UP THE RIGHT TO HAVE A JUDGE OR A JURY DECIDE ANY COVERED CLAIMS. (Arbitration Agreement, ¶ 1a.)
Other relevant sections of the Arbitration Agreement cover the fees and costs of arbitration:
Plaintiff began work for Defendant on June 25, 2018. (Baus, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff claims that, due to her advanced age, she was subject to disparate treatment by her coworkers and Defendant's management. (Complaint, ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that she witnessed other discriminatory conduct, including inappropriate comments from a coworker about gender identity and sexual orientation. (Complaint, ¶ 16.) On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury to her left thumb, which led to her being placed on involuntary leave, despite Plaintiff's stated belief that she could continue performing most of her job duties. (Complaint, ¶ 23-30.) Plaintiff sought to return to work on January 28, 2019, but was instructed to first have a teleconference with Defendant'smanagement. (Complaint, ¶ 32.) The next day, on January 29, 2019, Defendant informed Plaintiff that her employment was being terminated, purportedly because of her disrespectful conduct at work. (Complaint, ¶ 33.)
Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit against Defendant on October 9, 2019, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, Law Division, asserting claims for hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation under state and federal statutes, including the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). On November 7, 2019, Defendant removed the case to this Court. Defendant has moved to stay the case and compel arbitration, arguing that Plaintiff's employment had been conditioned on her agreement to arbitrate future claims. In response, Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable, and therefore, unenforceable.
The Federal Arbitration Act (hereinafter, the "FAA") "'creates a body of federal substantive law establishing and regulating the duty to honor an agreement to arbitrate. . . .'" Harris v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 183 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983)). The FAA was designed by Congress "'to reverse the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements that had existed at English common law and had been adopted by American courts, and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.'" Beery v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d 531, 536-37 (D.N.J. 2013) (quoting Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991)). In achieving this end, the FAA provides that contract provisions containing arbitration clauses shall be binding, allows for the stay of federal court proceedings in any matter referable to arbitration,and permits both federal and state courts to compel arbitration if one party has failed to comply with an agreement to arbitrate. 9 U.S.C. §§ 2-4. Collectively, "those provisions [of the FAA] 'manifest a liberal policy favoring arbitration agreements.'" Beery, 953 F. Supp. 2d at 537 (quoting Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 24). In that connection, "'as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.'" Id. (quoting Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. at 24-25).
Although federal law presumptively favors the enforcement of arbitration agreements, when a district court is presented with a motion to compel arbitration, it must affirmatively answer the following two questions before compelling arbitration pursuant to § 4 of the FAA: (1) whether the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement; and (2) whether the dispute at issue falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 584 F.3d 513, 523 (3d Cir. 2009). To determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, federal courts apply applicable state contract law. Aliments Krispy Kernels, Inc. v. Nichols Farms, 851 F.3d 283, 289 (3d Cir. 2017). In "applying the relevant state contract law, a court may also hold that an agreement to arbitrate is 'unenforceable based on a generally applicable contractual defense, such as unconscionability.'" Parilla v. IAP Worldwide Servs., VI, Inc., 368 F.3d 269, 276 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996)).
The parties do not dispute that the claims at issue here fall within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Under the plain language of the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to resolve through arbitration all...
To continue reading
Request your trial