Opinion
Civil Action 02-0201 Section "T"(6)
May 7, 2002
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings Pending Arbitration filed on behalf of the defendant, Ryan's Family Steak House, Inc. ("Ryan's"). The Court, having considered the arguments of counsel, the Court record, the evidence submitted, the applicable law and jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff. Pinkey L. Gooden ("Gooden"). applied for employment with Ryan's at its Hammond, Louisiana restaurant in Jane 1992. (GOODEN was subsequently hired by Ryan's and began working at the Hammond restaurant that same month. On November 13, 1993, Gooden signed an "Employee Agreement To Arbitration of Employment-Related Disputes" with Employment Dispute Services. Inc. (hereinafter "EDSI").
The Agreement Gooden signed contained, among other pertinent clauses, the following arbitration provisions under section B. Agreement:
1. Any employment-related dispute between the Company, Me, and/or other signatories which would otherwise be brought in State or Federal Court will be brought ONLY in the EDSI arbitration forum and under EDSI Rules and Procedures, as modified or amended from time to time. (Other signatories to the same Agreement with EDSI may be, for example, supervisors, managers, and agents of the Company.)
2. A. [A]ny and all disputes that I may have with the company, or in that company, its supervisors, managers or other agents may have with Me which would otherwise be decided in court, shall be resolved only through arbitration in the EDSI forum and NOT THROUGH LITIGATION IN STATE OR FEDERAL COURT
E. I absolutely must use the EDSI forum for any and all employment-related disputes and/or claims and/or related tort claims I may have against the Company and all other signatories to this Agreement which would otherwise be brought in court, even if this Agreement has been terminated since the date of the claim.
( See Exhibit A attached to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings.)
In October of 2001. Gooden's employment with Ryan's terminated. In January; 2002, she filed the present lawsuit.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Arbitration is a matter of contract between the parties, and a court cannot compel a party to arbitrate a dispute unless the court determines the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question. ATT Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 1418, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986); Neal v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 918 F.2d 34, 37 (5th Cir. 1990). Determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question involves two considerations. (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties exists; and, (2) whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement. Pennzoil Exploration and Prod. Co. v. Ramco Energy Ltd., 139 F.3d 1061, 1065 (5th Cir. 1998).
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") applies to written arbitration provisions contained in contracts evidencing a transaction involving commerce, and its reach is coextensive with the Congressional power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Section 2 of the FAA provides that a "written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court has stated that this section serves as a "congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). As such, arbitration should be required "unless it can be said with positive assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation" that would include the claims at issue. See,Pennzoil, 139 F.3d at 1067 (quoting Neal, 918 F.2d at 37).
In this case, the Employee Arbitration Agreement is "a contract evidencing a transaction involving interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 2. Ryan's is a multi-state restaurant chain whose food products, advertisement, supplies, and services are procured through interstate commerce. The restaurant where plaintiff, a Louisiana resident, was employed, was located near an interstate highway and EDSI is a South Carolina corporation.
Moreover, there is no dispute that there is a written arbitration provision in said Agreement. Specifically, Section B of the Employee Arbitration Agreement provides:
1. Any employment-related dispute between the Company, Me, and/or other signatories which would otherwise be brought in State or Federal court will be brought ONLY in the EDSI arbitration forum and under EDSI Rules and Procedures, as modified or amended from time to time.
2. A. [A]ny and all disputes that I may have with the company, or in that company, its supervisors, managers or other agents may have with Me which would otherwise be decided in court, shall be resolved only through arbitration in the EDSI forum and NOT THROUGH LITIGATION IN STATE OR FEDERAL COURT.
E. I absolutely must use the EDSI forum for any and all employment-related disputes and/or claims and/or related tort claims I may have against the Company and all other signatories to this Agreement which would otherwise be brought in court, even if this Agreement has been terminated since the date of the claim.
( See Exhibit A attached to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings.)
The Fifth Circuit has differentiated arbitration clauses which are "broad" and those that are "narrow." Where an arbitration clause is "broad," the action should be stayed and the arbitrator permitted to decide if the dispute falls within the clause. Whereas in cases where the clause is "narrow," the case is not referred to arbitration or stayed, unless the Court determines that the dispute falls within the clause In re Complaint of Hornbeck Offshore Corp., 981 F.2d 752 (5th Cir. 1993). "Narrow" arbitration clauses are those which only require arbitration of disputes "arising out of" the contract, whereas "broad" arbitration clauses govern disputes which "relate to" or "are connected with" the contract. See, Pennzoil, supra. Additionally, clauses which contain the "any dispute" language are considered to be "broad" Id. Rojas v. TK Communications, Inc., 87 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 1996) ("any other dispute" was sufficiently broad). In this case, the arbitration agreement refers to "any employment-related dispute . . . any and all disputes I may have with the Company, or in that company, its supervisors, managers or other agents may have with me which would otherwise be decided in court." ( See Exhibit B attached to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings.) (emphasis added.) This Court finds that this is a sufficiently "broad" arbitration clause and applies to the causes of action alleged including any of the enumerated allegations.
The plaintiff has asserted claims for race discrimination, religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation, failure to pay claim, and violations of COBRA/ERISA. These claims fall within the scope of the "broad" arbitration provision over "any employment-related dispute . . . any and all disputes I may have with the Company. or in that company, its supervisors, managers or other agents may have with me which would otherwise be decided in court." ( See Exhibit B attached to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings.)
As such, it is the opinion of this Court that this Agreement falls within the scope of the FAA and pursuant to Section 2, said arbitration provision is "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable." 9 U.S.C. § 2 Moreover, it is clear to this Court that (1) a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties, and (2) that the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration. See, Pennzoil, supra.
When the Parties agree in writing to arbitrate their disputes, Section 3 of the FAA requires courts to stay proceedings that are referable to arbitration as follows:
If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.9 U.S.C. § 3. Having found a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate, the parties are hereby compelled to arbitrate the issues presented in this suit and this Court shall stay these proceedings pending said arbitration.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings Pending Arbitration filed on behalf of the defendant, Ryan's Family Steak House, Inc., be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes, and,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction and that the case shall be restored to the trial docket and shall be reset by order of this Court upon motion of a party if circumstances change, so that the case may proceed to final disposition. This order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.