Bond v. CBRE, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting #6 Motion to Compel Arbitration. The court hereby (1) grants defendant's motion (Dkt. #6 ), (2) orders the parties to arbitrate all claims advanced in the action; and (3) stays the case pending the results of the arbitration. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 10/13/2020. (sz)
Case 2:20-cv-02403-JTM-JPO Document 8 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Lance Bond brings the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that his former employer,
CBRE, Inc., discriminated against him by unfair pay, false disciplinary actions, and
termination. He also claims CBRE retaliated against him for his opposition to alleged
racial and gender discrimination at CBRE. The matter is before the court on CBRE’s
motion to stay the action subject to arbitration.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to written arbitration agreements in any
contract “evidencing a transaction involving commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “The FAA was
designed to overrule the judiciary’s long-standing refusal to enforce agreements to
arbitrate, and to place such agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. Volt
Info. Sciences v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 478 (1989)
(quoting Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 219–220 (1985) and Scherk v.
Case 2:20-cv-02403-JTM-JPO Document 8 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 3
Alberto–Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 511 (1974) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess.,
1, 2 (1924))) (internal quotation marks omitted). The FAA advances “a liberal federal
policy favoring arbitration agreements.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury
Construction, 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983).
Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 3, a court will compel arbitration if it finds that: “(1)
a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and (2) the dispute before it falls
within the scope of the agreement.” The court will presume the validity of the arbitration
clause of an agreement. AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650
(1986). Any doubt is to be resolved in favor of arbitration, Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of
Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 130 S.Ct. 2847, 177 L.Ed.2d 567 (2010), and courts will “rigorously
enforce” such provisions. Sanchez v. Nitro-Lift Techs., LLC, 762 F.3d 1139, 1145 (10th Cir.
According to the Complaint, Bond first worked for CBRE as a contractor in 2009.
In November, 2015, he was formally hired by CBRE, and on September 27, 2017 accepted
CBRE’s offer for the position of Senior Transactions Manager. That employment was
accompanied by a latter from CBRE which “serves to confirm the full and complete terms
of our employment offer and supersedes any prior discussions or agreements.” (Dkt. 61, at 5). The letter contains the following provision:
Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), in the event of any dispute
or claim between you and CBRE (including all of its employees, agents,
subsidiary and affiliated entities, benefit plans, benefit plans’ sponsors,
Case 2:20-cv-02403-JTM-JPO Document 8 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 3
fiduciaries, administrators, affiliates, and all successors and assigns of any
of them), we jointly agree to submit all such disputes or claims to
confidential binding arbitration and waive any right to a jury trial. The
claims and disputes subject to arbitration include all claims arising from or
related to your employment or the termination of your employment
including, but not limited to, claims for wages or other compensation due;
claims for breach of any contract or covenant (express or implied); tort
claims; claims for misappropriation of trade secrets or unfair competition:
claims for discrimination, harassment or retaliation (including, but not
limited to, race, sex, religion, national origin, age, marital status, or
medical condition or disability, such as for example, under the
Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act and similar state and federal
anti-discrimination statutes); claims for benefits (except where an employee
benefit or pension plan specifies that its claims procedure shall culminate
in an arbitration procedure different from this one); and claims for violation
of any federal, state, or governmental law, statute, regulation, or ordinance.
Id. at 6 (emphasis added).
The plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and retaliation fall squarely within this
provision. Following the defendant’s motion, plaintiff has submitted a pleading
indicating he does not challenge application of the provision. Accordingly, for good cause
shown and without objection, the court hereby (1) grants defendant’s motion (Dkt. 6), (2)
orders the parties to arbitrate all claims advanced in the action; and (3) stays the case
pending the results of the arbitration.
IT IS SO ORDERED this day of October, 2020.
J. Thomas Marten
J. Thomas Marten, Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?