|
In Luafau v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., No. C 06-00347 CW, 2006 WL 2619365 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2006), Luafau sought to bring a series of employment claims as representative of a putative class against her employer, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (Affiliated). The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Luafau’s motion to compel arbitration, since only Affiliated followed the proper procedure, as agreed to by the parties.
Upon her employment, Luafau signed an acceptance of Affiliate’s “Dispute Resolution Plan” (DRP), which allowed an employee to initiate dispute resolution proceedings “by serving a written request...on the Company’s Dispute Resolution Plan Administrator.” After a dispute arose, and the Court stayed judicial proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration, Luafau contacted a dispute resolution provider, but failed to notify the Plan Administrator, as required by the DRP. Affiliated refused to comply with Luafau’s arbitration forum, and initiated arbitration proceedings of its own in a different forum.
The Court ruled that Affiliated’s chosen forum was the only appropriate setting for arbitration between the parties, since Luafau failed to comply with the parties’ dispute resolution agreement. Likewise, the Court rejected Luafau’s claim that Affiliated waived its right to object to the improper filing by failing to make such objections known immediately. See Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d 1551, 1559 (9th Cir. 1991). In fact, Affiliated had objected via email only several weeks following Laufau’s filing. Given the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, the Court found that Affiliated had not waived its right to object to Luafau’s filing, and that arbitration could proceed as provided by the DRP. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983).
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|