|
A federal court in Colorado refused to stay an enforcement action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) pending appeal of an earlier order denying enforcement of an arbitration clause between the defendant employer and a former employee.
In E.E.O.C. v. Joslin Dry Goods Co., No. Civ.A. 05-CV-00177WD, 2007 WL 433144 (D. Colo. Feb. 2, 2007), the E.E.O.C. initiated an enforcement action on behalf of Wolff, a former employee of Joslin Dry Goods Company, who was allegedly sexually harassed by an assistant store manager.
The Court permitted Wolff to intervene in the case, but Joslin moved to stay proceedings as to Wolff, due to the existence of an arbitration agreement. Citing E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279 (2002), the Court refused to stay the action and compel arbitration. Joslin appealed that ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and, in this action, sought to stay the E.E.O.C.'s enforcement action until the appeal is resolved.
The Court also denied this motion to stay, noting that Joslin would be forced to litigate the E.E.O.C.'s claims regardless of the Tenth Circuit's decision regarding the arbitration agreement. Joslin then argued that it was prejudiced by the E.E.O.C.'s refusal to provide discovery concerning Wolff.
However, the Court could not discern any hardship suffered by Joslin in conducting discovery and litigating the E.E.O.C. case while the arbitration appeal was pending. If anything, the Court noted, a stay of an entire class action case would be far more harmful than any alleged prejudice suffered by Joslin.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|