Zghaoui v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M)
Filing
19
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered granting 4 Motion to Compel (Lyness, Paul)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-11911-GAO
MALIKA ZGHAOUI,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUNOCO, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
April 13, 2012
O’TOOLE, D.J.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Middlesex Superior Court against the defendant alleging
sexual harassment, sex based employment discrimination, retaliation in violation of Mass. Gen.
Laws. Ch. 151B and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant has moved to
compel arbitration pursuant to the plaintiff’s signed employment contract.
When seeking an order compelling arbitration, the moving party must demonstrate that “a
valid agreement to arbitrate exists, that the movant is entitled to invoke the arbitration clause,
that the other party is bound by that clause, and that the claim asserted comes within the clause’s
scope.” Campbell v. Gen. Dynamics Gov’t Sys. Corp., 407 F.3d 546, 552 (1st Cir. 2005)
(quoting InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 142 (1st Cir. 2003).
The plaintiff argues she should not be subject to the arbitration agreement because the
Sunoco Dispute Resolution Program (“DRP”) is misleading and confusing. This argument is
without merit. The DRP Handbook, which the plaintiff signed, is only seventeen pages long and
explicitly outlines the procedures for employment disputes. (See Def.’s Memo in Support of
Motion to Compel, Ex. 1 at 5-22 (dkt. no. 5).) It also specifically states the agreement to arbitrate
in “clear and unmistakable” terms. See Joule v. Simmons, 459 Mass. 88, 95 n.5 (Mass. 2011).
The DRP specifically includes that harassment, discrimination, retaliation and intentional
infliction of emotional distress are all covered by the agreement to arbitrate. Thus, the agreement
should be enforced.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s Motion (dkt. no. 4) to Compel Arbitration is
GRANTED. This action is dismissed.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
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?