McClure v. H-N-R Block

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 8 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. The proceedings are STAYED pending further order of the court. The Clerk is ORDERED to close the case, subject to the right of either party to seek relief from the stay. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 5/11/15. (jld)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
LALETA M. MCCLURE,

)
)
)
) CASE NO: 1:15-CV-17
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
H-N-R BLOCK,
Defendant.

OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay and to
Compel

Arbitration

February 17, 2015.
Defendant’s

motion

(DE

#8),

filed

by

the

Defendant

on

For the reasons set forth below, the
to

proceedings is GRANTED.

compel

arbitration

and

stay

Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, the

parties shall proceed with arbitration as provided by their
agreement.

Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, the proceedings are

STAYED pending further order of the Court.

The Clerk is

ORDERED to close the case, subject to the right of either
party to seek relief from the stay.
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that an
arbitration clause in a “contract evidencing a transaction
involving commerce . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in

equity for the revocation of any contract.”

9 U.S.C. § 2.

The FAA generally requires a court to grant a motion to
compel arbitration where the court finds: (1) “a written
agreement to arbitrate,” (2) “a dispute within the scope of
the

arbitration

arbitrate.”

agreement,”

enforcement

of

agreements,”

a

wide

including

employment contracts.
U.S.

(3)

“a

refusal

to

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Watts Indus., Inc., 417

F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2005).

532

and

105,

111,

“[T]he FAA compels judicial

range

of

arbitration

written

arbitration

agreements

found

in

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams,
119

(2001);

International

Bros.

of

Teamsters Local Union No. 50 v. Kienstra Precast, LLC., 702
F.3d

954,

arbitration

956

(7th

of

a

Cir.
wide

2012).
range

The

of

FAA

also

statutory

compels

violations,

including federal employment discrimination claims.

See

CompuCredit

668

Corp.

(2012)(finding

v.

that

agreements

“even

statutory

claims,

‘overridden

courts

when

the

unless

by

command.’”)(internal
Interstate/Johnson
(1991)(compelling

Greenwood,
must

claims
the

a

S.Ct.

at

issue

arbitration

of

are

federal

has

been

congressional

omitted);
500

arbitration

mandate

contrary

Corp.,

665,

enforce

FAA’s

citation
Lane

132

Gilmer

U.S.

claims

20,

under

the

v.
33-34
Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) under a broadly-

2

worded

arbitration

clause);

Koveleskie

v.

SBC

Capital

Markets, Inc., 167 F.3d 361, 365 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding
that

Congress

did

not

intend

Title

VII

to

preclude

enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements).
Here, the parties agreed in writing as a part of an
employment

contract

to

arbitrate

the

claims

Plaintiff

alleges in her Complaint (D.E. #9-1 at ¶ 17), i.e., that
Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964

and

certain

state

law

claims

concerning

wages.

Moreover, while Plaintiff believes that Defendant’s motion
to dismiss is further evidence of discrimination, she has
stated no reason suggesting that arbitration of her claim
is

inappropriate.

Accordingly,

this

Court

is

satisfied

that Plaintiff’s claim is referable to arbitration.
“[U]pon

being

satisfied

that

the

issue

involved

in

such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under
such an agreement, [the court] shall on application of one
of the parties stay the trial of the action until such
arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of
the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not
in default in proceeding with such arbitration.” 9 U.S.C. §
3

(emphasis

having

to

assistance

added).
file
is

a

A
new

required

stay

prevents

action

each

regarding

3

the
time

issues

parties
the

from

Court’s

involving

the

arbitrator (9 U.S.C. § 5), witnesses (9 U.S.C. § 7), or the
award (9 U.S.C. §§ 9, 10, 11).

Lloyd v. HOVENSA, LLC, 369

F.3d 263, 270 (3d. Cir. 2004).
Notwithstanding the plain language of § 3, many courts
hold that dismissal is a permissible remedy when all of the
issues presented in a lawsuit are arbitrable.

See Apache

Bohai Corp., LDC v. Texaco China. B.V., 330 F.3d 307, 311
n. 9 (5th Cir. 2003); Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992).

Other Courts hold

that district courts are obligated to grant a stay pursuant
to § 3.

See HOVENSA, 369 F.3d at 269.

In this case, the Defendant requests this Court to
dismiss the action or, in the alternative, to stay the
action.

Given the plain language of § 3 and the benefits

of granting a stay rather than a dismissal, this Court is
not persuaded that a dismissal is more appropriate than a
stay.
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to
compel

arbitration

and

stay

proceedings

is

GRANTED.

Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, the parties shall proceed with
arbitration as provided by their agreement.
U.S.C.

§

3,

the

proceedings

order of the Court.

are

STAYED

Pursuant to 9
pending

further

The Clerk is ORDERED to close the

4

case, subject to the right of either party to seek relief
from the stay.

DATED: May 11, 2015

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

5