Opinion
2:23-cv-11662
07-26-2024
MARY ANN LEE, Plaintiff, v. QUALIGENCE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND STAYING CASE UNTIL RESOLUTION OF PENDING STATE CASES
SUSAN K. DECLERCQ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before this Court on Defendant Qualigence's motions either to dismiss Plaintiff Mary Ann Lee's First Amended Complaint or to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
As explained below, the case will be stayed pending resolution of cases before the Michigan Supreme Court.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant, her former employer, alleging race and age discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). ECF No. 11.
Plaintiff contends that she was passed over for promotions and ultimately terminated because of her race and age, and in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination.
Defendant seeks to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement included in its Employee Manual, which Plaintiff acknowledged receiving and agreeing to. See ECF No. 13-4 at PageID.384. Plaintiff challenges the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement, arguing it lacks mutuality of obligation, fundamental fairness, and contains invalid cost-splitting provisions. ECF No. 15.
II. ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, Defendant's motions are denied without prejudice for impermissibly being in the same brief. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1)(A).
And this Court will exercise its “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Novak v. Federspiel, 646 F.Supp.3d 878, 896 (E.D. Mich. 2022) (quoting Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997)). The validity of the Manual's provision requiring arbitration of Plaintiff's Michigan civil-rights claims depends on the outcome of Rayford v. American House Roseville I, LLC, No. 163989 (Mich.), and Saidizand v. GoJet Airlines, LLC, No. 163664 (Mich.), both pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. These cases concern similar issues of waiver and arbitration of Michigan civil-rights claims in employment agreements purporting to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, and their outcomes will likely impact the resolution of this case. Accordingly, the relevant factors warrant a stay until the resolution of Rayford and Saidizand. See Little v. City of Saginaw, 678 F.Supp.3d 936, 939 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2023) (“[T]his Court must consider the likelihood of success, the likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party, any harm to others, and the public interest.” (citing Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991))). So the case will be stayed until then.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or to Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 13, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Further, it is ORDERED that Defendant is GRANTED leave to file a second motion to dismiss on or before 30 days after the Michigan Supreme Court issues its opinions in Rayford v. American House Roseville I, LLC, No. 163989 (Mich.), and Saidizand v. GoJet Airlines, LLC, No. 163664 (Mich.), allowing for the application of new precedent.
Further it is ORDERED that the case is STAYED until the Michigan Supreme Court resolves Rayford v. American House Roseville I, LLC, No. 163989 (Mich.), and Saidizand v. GoJet Airlines, LLC, No. 163664 (Mich.).
This order does not close the above-captioned case.