|
A federal court held that an intervenor plaintiff in an action brought by the E.E.O.C. must arbitrate her claims against her former employer when the claims are subject to an arbitration clause.
In E.E.O.C. v. Hooters of America, Inc., No. 06-CV-6138CJS, 2007 WL 64163 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 09, 2007), Melissa Vicari, a Hooters employee, alleged discrimination for her disabilities. The E.E.O.C. brought suit on her behalf, and Vicari moved to intervene into the proceeding.
Hooters moved to stay Vicari's action and to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause that Vicari was required to sign as a condition of continued employment.
The Court rejected Vicari's argument that Hooters waived its right to arbitrate because Hooters moved to compel arbitration only six weeks after Vicari moved to intervene. Additionally, the parties had conducted only a small amount of discovery, and Vicari presented no evidence that she was prejudiced by Hooter's delay in asking the Court to compel arbitration.
The Court further rejected Vicari's argument that her claim was no longer a "private...action subject to arbitration" because she was attempting to intervene in an EEOC proceeding. Vicari "possesses an independent interest in her claims, [and]...those claims - which arise from the terms of her employment with defendant - are subject to arbitration under the plain terms of the arbitration agreement that she signed."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|