Wallace v. Rick Case Auto, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 October 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action File No. 1:12–CV–4271–TWT.
• Citation: 979 F.Supp.2d 1343
• Parties: Robert WALLACE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK CASE AUTO, INC. a/k/a Rick Case Automotive Group doing business as Rick Case Cars a/k/a Gwinnett Audi a/k/a Gwinnett Auto, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

979 F.Supp.2d 1343

Robert WALLACE, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.RICK CASE AUTO, INC. a/k/a Rick Case Automotive Group doing business as Rick Case Cars a/k/a Gwinnett Audi a/k/a Gwinnett Auto, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action File No. 1:12–CV–4271–TWT.

United States District Court,

N.D. Georgia,

Atlanta Division.

Oct. 23, 2013.

Alex R. Roberson, J. Stephen Mixon, Millar & Mixon, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs.

Adriana Midence Scott, Robert W. Capobianco, Jackson Lewis LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., District Judge.

This is a Title VII employment discrimination action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 23] of the Magistrate Judge recommending dismissing the action based upon the mandatory arbitration clauses in the Plaintiffs' employment contracts. The arbitration clauses are typical of those routinely enforced in the federal courts. The Plaintiffs cite no authority in support of their argument that an arbitration clause is void for indefiniteness unless it specifies in detail the number of arbitrators, fees, procedures, etc. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. This action is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

ORDER and FINAL REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

J. CLAY FULLER, United States Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. (Doc. 9). As a preliminary matter, Defendants' Motion for Oral Argument, (Doc. 21), is hereby DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, who worked as salespersons in the car business, (Amended Compl., Doc. 6 at ¶¶ 14, 26, 40), filed this action alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation, and negligent hiring and supervision against Rick Case Cars, Inc., ( id. at ¶ 7), also known as Rick Case Automotive Group d/b/a Rick Case Cars a/k/a Gwinnett Audi a/k/a Gwinnett Auto ( id., caption) and individual Defendant Will Evans.

Defendant Rick Case Cars, Inc. operates several car dealerships in Florida, Georgia and Ohio. ( See Stokes Decl., Doc. 9–2 at ¶ 2). Plaintiff Black worked as a sales associate at an Atlanta Hyundai dealership, while Plaintiffs Wallace and Jun worked at an Atlanta Audi dealership. ( Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6 & 8). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs are required to resolve their disputes relating to their employment through arbitration based on having executed employment agreements with arbitration provisions.

I. The Wallace and Black Agreements

When beginning work, Plaintiffs Wallace and Black executed documents entitled “Comprehensive Agreement Employment At Will And Arbitration.” ( Id., Exs. A and C). The agreements provide:

1. It is hereby agreed by and between [Plaintiff] (hereinafter “Employee”) and Rick Case Automotive Group (hereinafter “Company”) that the employment and compensation of Employee can be terminated by the Company or the Employee at any time, with or without cause and/or with or without notice, at the option of the Company or the Employee.

2. I also acknowledge that the Company promotes a voluntary system of alternative dispute resolution which involves binding arbitration to resolve all disputes which may arise out of the employment context.... I voluntarily agree that any claim, dispute, and/or controversy (including, but not limited to, any claims of discrimination and harassment, whether they be based on this State's Civil Rights Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in EmploymentAct, as well as other state or federal laws or regulations) which would otherwise require or allow resort to any court or other governmental dispute resolution forum between myself and the Company (or its owners, directors, officers, managers, employees, agents, and parties affiliated with its employee benefit and health plans) arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with my seeking employment with, employment by, separation of employment, or other association with the Company, whether based on tort, contract, statutory, or equitable law, or otherwise (with the sole exception of claims arising under the National Labor Relations Act which are brought before the National Labor Relations Board, claims for medical and disability benefits under Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation claims filed within the state, and charges of discrimination filed and processed before the EEOC) shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, in conformity with the procedures of this State's Arbitration Code.

(Doc. 9–2, Exs. A and C).

II. The Jun Agreement

Plaintiff Jun, on the other hand, executed a different employment agreement providing, in relevant part:

1. It is agreed between Rick Case Automotive Group (“Company”) and Jamie H. Jun (“Employee”) that the employment and compensation of Employee can be terminated by Company or the Employee at any time with or without cause and with or without notice at the option of Company or the Employee....

...

4. It is also acknowledged that the Company promotes a voluntary system of alternative dispute resolutions (sic) which involves binding arbitration and resolves all disputes which may arise out of the employment context.

5. ... both the Company and the Employee voluntarily agree that any claimed dispute or controversy including, but not limited to, any claim of discrimination or harassment whether based on Title VII of the State's Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Age Discrimination and Employment Act as well as other state and federal law which allow for binding arbitration.

6. Binding arbitration applies to any claim by the Employee arising from, related to or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with seeking employment, employment by or separation from the Company or other association with the Company whether based in tort, contract, statutory or equitable law. All disputes shall be submitted and determined exclusively through a binding arbitration proceeding under the American Arbitration Association rules in conjunction with any state arbitration statutes....

(Doc. 9–2, Ex. B). Invoking these agreements, Defendants demanded that Plaintiffs dismiss this action and proceed with arbitration, (Doc. 9–3), but Plaintiffs refused and the instant motion followed.

Defendants have filed the motion to compel arbitration and supporting documents. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff responded (Doc. 11), and Defendants replied (Doc. 13). The parties were directed by Order (Doc. 15) to provide supplemental briefing, and each side did so. ( See Docs. 19 and 20, respectively). With briefing complete, and having concluded that oral argument is not necessary, the undersigned turns to the merits of the motions.

DISCUSSION

The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. was enacted in 1925 “to reverse longstanding judicial hostility toward arbitration.” Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir.2005). The FAA reflects “a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.” Hill v. Rent–A–Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir.2005). One purpose behind the FAA is “to relieve congestion in the courts and to provide parties with an alternative method for dispute resolution that is speedier and less costly than litigation.” Indus. Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1440 (11th Cir.1998).

To determine whether to grant a motion to compel arbitration, “the Court must assess whether: ‘(1) there is a valid written agreement to arbitrate; (2) the issue [sought to be arbitrated] is arbitrable under the agreement; and (3) the party asserting the claims has failed or refused to arbitrate the claims.’ ” Lomax v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society, 228 F.Supp.2d 1360, 1362 (N.D.Ga.2002) (citation omitted). The fact that plaintiffs here advance statutory discrimination claims does not change this analysis, as “compulsory arbitration agreements are now common in the workplace, and it is not an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require an employee to arbitrate, rather than litigate, rights under various federal statutes, including employment-discrimination statutes.” Caley, 428 F.3d at 1367.

I. Wallace and Black Agreed To Arbitrate Disputes With Their Employer.

Plaintiffs Wallace and Black executed agreements providing as follows:

I voluntarily agree that any claim ... which would otherwise require or allow resort to any court or other governmental dispute resolution forum between myself and the Company ... arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with my seeking employment with, employment by, separation of employment, or other association with the Company, whether based on tort, contract, statutory, or equitable law, or otherwise ... shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, in conformity with the procedures of this State's Arbitration Code.

( See Doc. 11–1 and Doc. 11–3).

A. The Eleventh Circuit And Georgia's Appellate Courts Have Invoked Equitable Estoppel To Allow Non–Signatories To Enforce Arbitration Agreements.

Plaintiffs' primary argument is that their employer, Rick Case Cars, Inc., lacks standing to compel arbitration. (Doc. 11 at 3). All the agreements identify “the Company” as “Rick Case Automotive Group.” (Docs. 11–1, 11–2, and 11–3). On this note, a careful reading of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is in order. Plaintiffs name Rick Case Cars, Inc. as the corporate Defendant. (Doc. 6 at ¶ 7). In the caption, however, Plaintiffs misidentify the corporate Defendant as Rick Case Auto Inc., which, importantly, is also known as Rick Case Automotive Group. ( See Compl., Doc. 1, and Am. Compl., Doc. 6). Notably, “Rick Case Automotive” accepted service. ( See Waiver of Service, Doc. 5). The undersigned will presume, for purposes of the present motion, that Rick Case Cars, Inc. is a non-signatory to the...