Vincent v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 9 MOTION to Compel Arbitration, to be refilled on or before January 25, 2016 if necessary. The parties are DIRECTED to engage in discovery limited to the issues presented by the 9 Motion to Compel Arbitration. Such discovery SHALL be completed on or before January 25, 2016. Signed by Judge James H Hancock on 11/19/2015. (JLC)

FILED
2015 Nov-19 AM 10:49
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JENNIFER VINCENT,
PLAINTIFF,

)
)

VS.

)

AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC,
a corporation; and TORVAC AMOS,
individually,

)

DEFENDANTS.

2:15-cv-00665-JHH

)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court has before it Defendants’ Motion (Doc. #9) to Compel Arbitration filed on
June 29, 2015. That Motion (Doc. #9) was stayed by the court on July 16, 2015 (Doc. #13)
until the parties had the opportunity to brief the Motion (Doc. #12) for Leave to Conduct
Arbitration-Related Discovery. On August 6, 2015 the court entered an order (Doc. #17)
denying the motion for arbitration-related discovery and directing the plaintiff to show cause
why the motion to compel arbitration should not be granted. The issue has now been fully
briefed (Docs. #20, 21) and is ripe for review.
Plaintiff Jennifer Vincent filed a complaint in this case on April 22, 2015 alleging
sexual harassment, retaliation, and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended. (See generally Compl.). Defendants argue that those claims are
subject to the Management Arbitration Agreement (the “Agreement”) mandating the
arbitration of disputes related to employment. (Doc. #10 at 1). Vincent was sent various
emails in late 2011, advising her that unless she followed the instructions to opt out of the

program by February 6, 2012, she would be agreeing to the arbitration process. (Doc. #10
at 2). Vincent argues that she opted out of the Agreement, following the electronic opt-out
procedure, after discussing the Agreement with her manager. (Doc. #20 at 4, 7). Defendants
contend that Vincent did not opt out of the Agreement. (Doc. #10 at 1).
As this court has previously noted, the Eleventh Circuit has found that courts should
apply a Rule 56 summary judgment standard in evaluating motions to compel arbitration that
are considered as factual attacks on subject matter jurisdiction. See Magnolia Capital
Advisors, Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 272 Fed. Appx. 782, 785-86 (11th Cir. 2008); see also
Johnson v. KeyBank Nat’l Assoc., 754 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2014) (describing an order
compelling arbitration as “summary-judgment-like;” “it is in effect a summary disposition
of the issue of whether or not there has been a meeting of the minds on the agreement to
arbitrate.”). That is, “to make a genuine issue entitling the party seeking to avoid arbitration
to a trial by jury on the arbitrability question, an unequivocal denial that the agreement had
been made is needed, and some evidence should be produced to substantiate the denial.”
Chastain v. Robinson-Humphrey Co., 957 F.2d 851, 854 (11th Cir. 1992).
Now, for the first time, Plaintiff has produced an affidavit attesting to her contention
that she “rejected the ADR invitation and opted out of the arbitration process presented to
her by AT&T.” (Doc. #17 at 2). Plaintiff concedes that she received multiple emails from
AT&T with the subject line reading “Action Required Arbitration Agreement.” (Pl. Decl.,
¶¶ 9-12). From reading those emails, she understood that the deadline for opting out of the
Agreement was February 6, 2012 and should she choose to do nothing in response, she would

2

automatically agree to the arbitration process. (Pl. Decl., ¶ 9). Plaintiff spoke with her
manager at the time, Renard Williams, and was assured that she would suffer no
consequences if she made the decision to opt out of the Agreement. (Pl. Decl., ¶ 14).
Plaintiff contends that she opted out of the Agreement on February 6, 2012 by clicking on
the hyperlink to opt out and following the instructions on the screen. (Pl. Decl., ¶ 16).
Because there is now a dispute of fact in the record, the parties are DIRECTED to
engage in discovery limited to the issues presented by the Motion (Doc. #9) to Compel
Arbitration. Such discovery SHALL be completed on or before January 25, 2016. The
Motion (Doc. #9) to Compel Arbitration is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to be refiled on or before January 25, 2016 if necessary.
DONE this the 19th day of November, 2015.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3