|
In reversing a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a construction company’s promise to arbitrate workplace disputes is not illusory where the dispute resolution program encourages employees to speak with a "facilitator" that is similar to an advisor, as opposed to a facilitator who acts as a gatekeeper of employee claims.
In Lambert v. Austin, No. 07-10651, 2008 WL 4481444 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2008), Austin Maintenance & Construction, Inc. (Austin) adopted "Open Door," a company-wide workplace dispute resolution program. Open Door was a three-tiered process involving a conference with a supervisor, then mediation, and, as a last resort, arbitration. The Open Door policy stated that employees "may" and "should" contact the "facilitator," who would provide the employee with assistance and advice in the Open Door program.
Austin later hired William Lambert, and Lambert agreed to the Open Door policy as a condition of employment. Austin eventually fired Lambert for allegedly threatening a supervisor, and Lambert sued Austin for race and age discrimination, and also for retaliatory discharge. Austin moved to compel arbitration pursuant to Open Door.
The district court denied Austin’s motion to compel, holding that Lambert’s claims were not within the scope of Open Door because they were "not the type of ongoing, workplace disputes amenable to ‘open door'resolution." The district court further held that even if Lambert’s claims were within the scope of Open Door, Austin’s promise was "illusory" because the court interpreted the agreement as allowing Austin "the unbridled discretion to grant arbitration to employees." Austin appealed.
On appeal, the Court considered language from Open Door that the district court interpreted as allowing Austin to unilaterally determine what disputes could be arbitrated: "You should consult your Open Door facilitator to determine if your workplace dispute is appropriate for presentation to an arbitrator." The Court held that the district court misconstrued the role of the facilitator as Austin’s "arbitration gatekeeper"; rather, Open Door expressly provided that employees could request arbitration on their own. Accordingly, the Court held that the facilitator was more similar to an advisor than a gatekeeper. Thus, the Court held that the agreement was enforceable.
Next, the Court considered Lambert’s argument that his claims did not fall within the scope of Open Door because he was no longer an employee, and thus could not consult with a supervisor, the first step in the Open Door process. The Court rejected Lambert’s argument, holding that the text of Open Door made it clear that former employees could still request mediation and arbitration with their former supervisors. In addition, Open Door used broad language to include "all workplace disputes" and "disputes arising from or related to employment" within its scope. Thus, the Court held that Lambert’s claims were within the scope of Open Door. As a result, the Court reversed the district court and compelled arbitration.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|