Zoller v. GCA Advisors, LLC
Decision Date | 14 April 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 20-15595,20-15595 |
Citation | 993 F.3d 1198 |
Parties | Shannon ZOLLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GCA ADVISORS, LLC ; Robert Hofeditz; Jonathan Jameson; Reidan Cruz; Daniel Veatch, Defendants-Appellants, and GCA Corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Derek L. Shaffer (argued), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Washington, D.C.; Diane Doolittle, Kevin P.B. Johnson, and Brian C. Cannon, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Redwood City, California; for Defendants-Appellants.
Michael Rubin (argued), Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California; Peter Rukin, Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP, Oakland, California; Linda D. Friedman and Matthew J. Singer, Stowell & Friedman Ltd., Chicago, Illinois; for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: J. Clifford Wallace and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Jane A. Restani,* Judge.
Zoller also signed a Form U4, as required by FINRA.1 The form contained an arbitration provision where she agreed to "arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise between [her] and [GSA] ... that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions, or by-laws" of the self-regulatory organizations, including FINRA. Zoller received a FINRA Rule 2263 disclosure specifying that a FINRA Rule 13201 also states that if the parties agreed to arbitrate statutory employment discrimination claims, "the claim will be administered under Rule 13802." FINRA Rule 13802 also clarifies that it "applies to arbitrations involving a claim of statutory employment discrimination as defined in Rule 13100(bb)."
In July 2016, GCA fired Zoller. Despite the arbitration agreement, Zoller brought an action in federal district court alleging various contract claims, as well as claims of gender discrimination, denial of equal pay, a conspiracy to violate her civil rights, and a failure to prevent that conspiracy. Zoller and GCA filed a joint stipulation to arbitrate some of her claims, but she refused to arbitrate statutory claims. Zoller has contended that the following statutory claims should be considered by the judiciary rather than an arbitrator: (1) Equal Pay Act claim, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), 216(b) ; (2) Fair Pay Act claim, pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 1197.5 ; (3) Fair Employment and Housing Act claim, pursuant to Cal. Government Code § 12940(a) ; and (4) Civil Rights Act of 1871 claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3), 1986. GCA moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied GCA's motion to compel because it held that Zoller did not knowingly waive her right to pursue these claims in court. GCA appeals from the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16. We review the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. See Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc. , 755 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error, unless no facts are in dispute, in which case our entire review is de novo. Id . Determinations of arbitrability are also reviewed de novo. Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. , 175 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1999) ) . We reverse the district court's denial and remand with instructions to send Zoller's statutory claims to arbitration.
The Federal Arbitration Act (the Act) governs arbitration agreements in contracts evincing "a transaction involving commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Act declares a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration" and provides that such agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333, 339, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 473 U.S. 614, 631, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985) ( ). Generally, a court must determine two issues before deciding whether to compel arbitration: (1) whether there is an agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) whether the agreement covers the dispute. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. , 537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002) ; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc. , 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Zoller bears the burden of proving that her statutory employment discrimination and civil rights claims are not suitable for arbitration. Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph , 531 U.S. 79, 91–92, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000).
Zoller and GCA agree that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable as it pertains to Zoller's non-statutory claims. However, Zoller argues that her statutory claims are not within the scope of the agreement, or, in the alternative, that she did not knowingly waive judicial determination of these statutory claims. The knowing waiver doctrine is our judicially created requirement that narrows the Act's scope when other federal statutes explicitly limit the enforcement of arbitration agreements. The standard requires a party to an arbitration agreement to waive knowingly and explicitly their right to judicial determination of their Title VII claims. See Nelson v. Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. , 119 F.3d 756, 762 (9th Cir. 1997) ; Renteria v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America , 113 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 1997) ; Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Lai , 42 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir. 1994).
The Supreme Court has held that, while not all statutory claims may be appropriate for arbitration, if a party agreed to arbitration, the party will be held to that agreement unless the party could prove a congressional intent to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. , 500 U.S. 20, 26, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (citations omitted). Zoller, therefore, carries the burden to show such an intention, which would be discoverable in the text of the statutes creating her private right of action, the respective legislative histories, or an "inherent conflict" between arbitration and the statutes’ underlying purposes. Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). But see E.E.O.C. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps , 345 F.3d 742, 752–53 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ( ). We have been directed to keep in mind the federal policy favoring arbitration throughout the inquiry and to avoid generalized attacks on arbitration. Gilmer , 500 U.S. at 26, 30, 111 S.Ct. 1647.
Id . at 1304 ( )(emphasis added); see also § 118 of Pub. L. 102–166, set forth in the notes following 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Supp.1994) (); Statement of the President of the United States, Signing Ceremony, Pub. L. No. 102–166 (Nov. 21, 1991), reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 768, 769; Cong. Rec. S. 15472, S. 15478 (Daily Ed. October 30, 1991, statement of Senator Dole) (declaring that arbitration provisions are valid only "where the parties knowingly and voluntarily elect to use these methods.") (emphasis added).
We reasoned in Lai that these congressional concerns that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tolentino v. Saito
... ... whether the agreement covers the dispute.'” ... Knapke , 2022 WL 2336657, at *3 (quoting Zoller ... v. GCA Advisors, LLC , 993 F.3d 1198, 1201 ... (9 th Cir. 2021)) ... The ... arbitration agreement ... ...
-
Knapke v. PeopleConnect, Inc.
...there is an agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) whether the agreement covers the dispute." Zoller v. GCA Advisors, LLC , 993 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2021). Knapke does not dispute that the arbitration clause covers her claim. The question is thus whether Knapke agreed to a......
-
Ruiz v. Conduent Commercial Sols.
... ... equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C ... § 2; Zoller v. GCA Advisors, LLC, 993 F.3d ... 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2021). Further, the FAA permits a party ... “aggrieved by the alleged ... ...
-
Hansber v. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC
...save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; Zoller v. GCA Advisors, LLC, 993 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2021). Further, the FAA permits a party “aggrieved by the alleged . . . refusal to arbitrate” to petition any federal district co......
-
Mediation Tips and Arbitration Bits
...arbitration.STATUTORY CLAIMS FOUND ARBITRABLE WHERE THERE IS A KNOWING WAIVER OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES Zoller v GCA Advisors LLC, et al., 993 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2021)The District Court denied defendant GCA Advisors, LLC's (GCA) motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's statutory claims for e......