|
In granting a motion to compel arbitration, a federal district court in Colorado held that Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) claims are arbitrable because there is no inherent conflict between arbitration and USERRA’s underlying structure and purpose, as arbitration “presents a fair opportunity for a claimant to present and prevail on a claim of a USERRA violation.”
In Ohlfs v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 08-cv-00710-LTB-MEH, 2008 WL 4426012 (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2008), Ohlfs brought USERRA claims against his employer, Charles Schwab, for failing to reinstate Ohlfs to a position of similar status and pay following his return from active military service.
Schwab moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement that Ohlfs signed when he registered as a securities broker/adviser. Ohlfs opposed, arguing that a House Committee Report evinced Congress’s clear intention to preclude the waiver of judicial remedies for USERRA claims.
Following the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Garrett v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 449 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2006), the Court granted Schwab’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court held that the plain language of USERRA was unambiguous and did not reflect any intention on the part of Congress to preclude the waiver of judicial remedies for USERRA claims. Accordingly, the Court gave little weight to Ohlfs’s argument that an old House Committee Report reflected Congress’s clear intent to preclude the arbitration of USERRA claims.
Furthermore, citing Garrett, the Court noted that the “‘[e]nforcement of employment arbitration agreements does not disserve or impair the protections guaranteed by USERRA.’” Similarly, the Court pointed out that “there is no inherent conflict between arbitration and USERRA’s underlying structure and purposes, in that arbitration presents a fair opportunity for a claimant to present and prevail on a claim of a USERRA violation.” As a result, the Court granted Schwab’s motion to compel arbitration.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|