|
A federal district court in New York compelled arbitration of employment discrimination claims, pursuant to the language of a broad arbitration clause.
In DeBono v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. 05 Civ. 10333(DC), 2006 WL 3538938 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2006), DeBono was terminated from his job as a loan consultant with defendant Washington Mutual Bank (Washington). When DeBono sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, Washington moved to compel arbitration.
First, the Court noted that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate. DeBono claimed that he was unaware of the agreement, and that his signature only dealt with a separate portion of the broader employment agreement. The Court noted that a "party who signs or accepts a written contract ... is conclusively presumed to know its contents and to assent to them." Gold v. Deutcsch Aktiengesellschaft, 365 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Metzger v. Aetna Ins. Co., 227 N.Y. 411, 416 (1920)). Furthermore, DeBono should have seen at least three written notices indicating that binding arbitration was a condition of employment.
The Court also affirmed a well-known principle of alternative dispute resolution law: statutory claims, including Title VII claims, are fully arbitrable. Gold, 365 F.3d at 147-48; Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991).
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|