Ell v. Turner Industries Group, L.L.C.

Filing 23

ORDER: Both parties must provide supplemental memoranda within 21 days (not to exceed 20 pages) addressing whether an employee's Title VII claim can be subject to compulsory arbitration in light of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1 974), Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 939 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1991), 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., No. 14-60800, 2015 WL 6457613 (5th Cir. Oct. 26, 2015). The defendants' 5 Motion to Dismiss is DEFERRED until the Court has the opportunity to consider the supplemental memoranda submitted by the parties. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 11/17/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RANDY ELL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 15-230-JJB-RLB
TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP, LLC
ORDER
Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 5)
filed by the defendant, Turner Industries Group, LLC (“Turner”). Alternatively, Turner asks the
Court to stay the case pending arbitration. The plaintiff opposes the motion. Pl.’s Opp’n 1, Doc. 9.
Having reviewed the case law relevant to the parties’ arguments, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that both parties provide supplemental memoranda within 21 days (not to exceed 20
pages) addressing whether an employee’s Title VII claim can be subject to compulsory arbitration
in light of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974), Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson
Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 939 F.2d 229 (5th Cir.
1991), 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
No. 14-60800, 2015 WL 6457613 (5th Cir. Oct. 26, 2015). Parties should discuss the relevant
distinctions and similarities of the relevant contracts at issue in the cases listed above; Parties
should specifically address the relevant distinctions of contracts between an employer and an
individual employee, versus collectively bargained contracts between the employer and an
employees’ union. Parties should also address whether the arbitration clause at issue in this case
is unconscionable or unenforceably adhesionary under Louisiana law, including a discussion of
public policies in favor of permitting mandatory arbitration of Title VII claims versus holding such
clauses unenforceable.

1

The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is DEFERRED until the Court has the
opportunity to consider the supplemental memoranda submitted by the parties.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 17, 2015.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

2