O'Neil v. Hilton Head Hosp.

Decision Date13 June 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-2460,96-2460
Parties133 Lab.Cas. P 11,832, 134 Lab.Cas. P 33,568, 12 IER Cases 1579, 3 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1697, 10 NDLR P 107 Diane O'NEIL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HILTON HEAD HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

ARGUED: Brian S. McCoy, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Rock Hill, SC, for Appellant. Samuel Stanton Svalina, Svalina, Richardson & Larson, Beaufort, SC, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Benjamin A. Johnson, Sarah B. Boucher, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Rock Hill, SC, for Appellant. J. Brent Kiker, Svalina, Richardson & Larson, Beaufort, SC, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Judge DONALD S. RUSSELL and Judge MICHAEL joined.

OPINION

WILKINSON, Chief Judge.

Diane O'Neil sued her former employer, Hilton Head Hospital, alleging that she had been discharged in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Citing an arbitration agreement signed by O'Neil, the hospital moved that the suit be stayed pending arbitration as required by section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 3. The district court denied this motion.

We reverse. The FAA embodies a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration, and, accordingly, there is a strong presumption in favor of the validity of arbitration agreements. The district court erred when it found that the hospital was obligated to provide O'Neil with continued employment in order for the arbitration clause to be effective. We remand the case to the district court with directions that it be stayed pending arbitration.

I.

Diane O'Neil began working for Hilton Head Hospital as a respiratory therapist on January 15, 1991. On June 12, 1994, O'Neil began a leave of absence from the hospital, which she alleges was medical leave pursuant to the FMLA. While O'Neil was on leave, Hilton Head Hospital was acquired by American Medical International ("AMI"). During her leave, on August 19, 1994, O'Neil signed an acknowledgment form recognizing receipt of an AMI Employee Handbook and agreeing to submit all employment disputes to arbitration. That form contained the arbitration clause which is the subject of this appeal. The clause states:

I understand that AMI makes available arbitration for resolution of grievances. I also understand that as a condition of employment and continued employment, I agree to submit any complaints to the published process and agree to abide by and accept the final decision of the arbitration panel as ultimate resolution of my complaints for any and all events that arise out of employment or termination of employment. (emphasis in original).

On October 13, 1994, O'Neil was discharged. O'Neil filed a complaint against the Hospital in state court alleging violations of the FMLA. The Hospital removed the case to the district court and pursuant to section 3 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 3, moved to stay the action pending arbitration. The district court denied this motion from the bench on September 12, 1996. The Hospital appeals.

II.

In the FAA, Congress endorsed arbitration as a less formal and more efficient means than litigation of resolving disputes. In line with this congressional intent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the FAA represents "a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); accord Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, ----, 115 S.Ct. 1212, 1216, 131 L.Ed.2d 76 (1995); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 1651, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991). Pursuant to that liberal policy, "any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability." Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 24-25, 103 S.Ct. at 941.

The federal policy favoring the effective and efficient resolution of disputes through arbitration applies with equal strength to claims created by contract or by statute. "By agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum." Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler ChryslerPlymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3354, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985); see also Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., 78 F.3d 875, 880-81 (4th Cir.1996) (statutory claims are subject to arbitration). Nothing in the Family and Medical Leave Act suggests that Congress wished to exempt disputes arising under it from the coverage of the FAA. See Satarino v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 941 F.Supp. 609, 613 (N.D.Tex.1996) (FMLA "contains nothing to suggest that agreements to arbitrate are unenforceable.").

It is clear that the provisions of the FAA apply here. The FAA exempts from its coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 1. The circuit courts have uniformly reasoned that the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration requires a narrow reading of this section 1 exemption. Thus, those courts have limited the section 1 exemption to seamen, railroad workers, and other workers actually involved in the interstate transportation of goods. See Rojas v. TK Communications, Inc., 87 F.3d 745, 748 (5th Cir.1996); Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Bates, 71 F.3d 592, 600-601 (6th Cir.1995); Miller Brewing Co. v. Brewery Workers Local No. 9, 739 F.2d 1159, 1162 (7th Cir.1984); Erving v. Virginia Squires Basketball Club, 468 F.2d 1064, 1069 (2d Cir.1972); Dickstein v. duPont, 443 F.2d 783, 785 (1st Cir.1971). 1 We agree with this uniform body of precedent. If Congress had wished to exempt all employees from the coverage of the FAA it could have said so. Instead it enumerated an exempt class of employees, which is limited to workers engaged in the shipment and transportation of goods. See Rojas, 87 F.3d at 748. Therefore, since O'Neil was not engaged in the interstate transportation of goods, she does not fall within the section 1 exclusion, and the FAA applies.

III.

The FAA states that arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2. The FAA further provides for stays of proceedings in federal district courts when an issue in the proceeding is referable to arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3. O'Neil attempts to avoid these statutory directives by arguing that the arbitration agreement was not supported by consideration and that the agreement was contingent upon the hospital's commitment to provide her "continued employment." We address each of these contentions in turn.

A.

O'Neil first argues the contract to arbitrate was not supported by adequate consideration because the agreement was not binding on the hospital. O'Neil's argument fails because its premise is mistaken.

Here the agreement to be bound by arbitration was a mutual one. The contract to arbitrate was proffered by the employer. Such a proffer clearly implies that both the employer and the employee would be bound by the arbitration process. If an employer asks an employee to submit to binding arbitration, it cannot then turn around and slip out of the arbitration process itself.

It is true that courts have refused to enforce arbitration agreements where the agreement specifically allows the employer to ignore the results of arbitration. See Hull v. Norcom, Inc., 750 F.2d 1547, 1549 (11th Cir.1985). That is not the case here, however. There is no such clause in the arbitration agreement signed by O'Neil, and we decline to read such a clause into the contract. A mutual promise to arbitrate constitutes sufficient consideration for this arbitration agreement. Rickborn v. Liberty Life Insurance Co., 321 S.C. 291, 468 S.E.2d 292, 300 (1996).

O'Neil's argument that AMI has nowhere agreed to be bound by arbitration also ignores the multiple references in the AMI employee handbook, which indicate that AMI agreed that the arbitration process was binding. For, example, the handbook states: "As regards the Fair Treatment Procedure, AMI is committed to accepting the obligation to support and assure access to the binding arbitration procedure for solving disputes if necessary." (emphasis added). Indeed, the arbitration agreement signed by O'Neil clearly states that the decision of the arbitration board is "final." (emphasis in original).

O'Neil's argument is especially misplaced in the circumstances of this case. Not only has the hospital consistently argued that it is bound by the arbitration...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 cases
  • Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc., Civ. Action No. 16–3044 (FLW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 30 janvier 2017
    ......1999) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32, 103 S.Ct. ...Cir. 1997) ; O'Neil v. Hilton Head Hosp. , 115 F.3d 272, 274 (4th Cir. 1997) ; Rojas v. ......
  • Rushton v. Meijer, Inc., Docket No. 199684
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 19 août 1997
    ...... Renny v. Port Huron Hosp., 427 Mich. 415, 429-430, 398 N.W.2d 327 (1986); Zeniuk v. ...Hilton Head Hosp., 115 F.3d 272 (C.A.4, 1997), and Burns v. Olde ......
  • Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 12 mars 1998
    ......Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, ... O'Neil v. Hilton Head Hosp., 115 F.3d 272 (4th Cir.1997). Accordingly, this ......
  • Craft v. Campbell Soup Co., 98-15060
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 2 décembre 1998
    ......Hilton Head Hosp., 115 F.3d 272, 274 (4th Cir.1997)(ignoring ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 2
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Work Place
    • Invalid date
    ...F.E.P. Cases 689, aff’d without opinion 972 F.2d 1330, 63 F.E.P. Cases 960 (3d Cir. 1992). Fourth Circuit: O’Neil v. Hilton Head Hospital, 115 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 1997); Kropfelder v. Snap–On Tools Corp., 859 F. Supp. 952, 958 (D. Md. 1994); Cherry v. Wertheim Schroeder & Co., 868 F. Supp. 8......
  • Chapter 7
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Work Place
    • Invalid date
    ...Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 437, 207 F.2d 450 (3d Cir. 1953). Fourth Circuit: O’Neil v. Hilton Head Hospital, 115 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 1997). Fifth Circuit: Rojas v. TK Communications, 87 F.3d 745 (1996). Sixth Circuit: Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Bates, 71 F.3d 592......
  • Chapter 9
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Work Place
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Jet Aviation Business Jets, 764 F. Supp. 940, 61 I.E.R. Cases 854 (D.N.J. 1991). Fourth Circuit: O’Neil v. Hilton Head Hospital, 115 F.3d 272, 12 I.E.R. Cases 1579 (4th Cir. 1997). Eighth Circuit: Patterson v. Tenet Healthcare, 113 F.3d 832, 73 F.E.P. Cases 1822, 12 I.E.R. Cases 1434 (8t......
  • Chapter 1
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Work Place
    • Invalid date
    ...Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 437, 207 F.2d 450 (3d Cir. 1953). Fourth Circuit: O’Neil v. Hilton Head Hospital, 115 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 1997). Fifth Circuit: Rojas v. TK Communications, 87 F.3d 745 (1996). Sixth Circuit: Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Bates, 71 F.3d 592......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT