Bell v. Captain D's, LLC

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 12 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Senior Judge Glen H. Davidson on 8/14/14. (rel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

ABERDEEN DIVISION

PLAINTIFF

TISHY DEMETRIC BELL

CIVIL ACTION NO.1: 13-cv-00198-GHD-DAS

v.

DEFENDANT

CAPTAIN D'S, LLC

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Presently before the Court is Defendant Captain D's, LLC's motion to dismiss and to
compel arbitration [4]. Upon due consideration, the Court finds that the motion should be
granted.
Plaintiff Tishy Demetric Bell ("Plaintiff') brings this suit against her former employer,
Captain D's ("Defendant"), alleging quid pro quo, hostile work environment sexual harassment,
and retaliation for opposing sexual harassment in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of
1964. Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge for retaliation and received her right to sue letter on this
charge. I This suit followed.
In lieu of filing an answer, Defendant files the present motion to dismiss the civil action
and to compel arbitration [4] pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ( the "FAA") and in
accordance with the Employee Dispute Resolution Agreement signed by Plaintiff and Defendant's
Employee Dispute Resolution Plan. Alternatively, Defendant requests that the Court compel
arbitration and stay all proceedings in the civil action pending the outcome of arbitration.
Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion wherein she concedes that arbitration should be
compelled, given that Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement to begin her employment with
1

Plaintiff also filed a duplicate charge with the EEOC.

1

Defendant. However, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay, not dismiss, this civil action pending the
arbitration, and to retain jurisdiction over this case during the arbitration process. Plaintiff
maintains that a stay, not a dismissal, is appropriate, because she may receive an "impartial
arbitrator" and because she "wishes to preserve the issue ofwhether she can obtain a fair hearing in
arbitration." Pl.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. [to] at 2-3. Plaintiff further expresses her
concern that because Defendant will pay 100% of the arbitrator's fees, the arbitrator has an
"obvious financial incentive to rule for the paying party." Id. at 2.
As stated, the parties agree that arbitration should be compelled under 9 U.S.C. § 4, based
on the arbitration agreement Plaintiff signed as a condition of her employment. Defendant
attaches to its motion a copy of its Employee Dispute Resolution Plan and the arbitration
agreement signed by Plaintiff. The arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff provides in pertinent
part that she agrees to submit all claims against Defendant to arbitration and further provides: "I
understand that, ifI file a lawsuit regarding a claim against [Defendant], ... [Defendant] may use
this agreement to support its request for the court to dismiss the lawsuit and require me to resolve
my claim in accordance with the [Defendant's Employee Dispute Resolution Plan]."

See

Employee Dispute Resolution Agreement [4-2] at 1.
The sole issue before this Court is whether the case should be dismissed or stayed pending
arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 3, which provides that "upon being satisfied that the issue involved in
such suit ... is referable to arbitration under such an agreement," a court "shall ... stay the trial of
the action until such arbitration has been had." This Court has discretion to dismiss this case in
favor of arbitration. See Fedmet Corp. v. MIV Buyalyk, 194 F.3d 674, 676 (5th Cir. 1999). "The
weight of authority clearly supports dismissal of a case when all of the issues raised in the district

2

court must be submitted to arbitration," in which case "retaining jurisdiction and staying the action
[would] serve no purpose." Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir.
1992) (citing Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Sea-Land of P.R., Inc., 636 F. Supp. 750, 757 (D. Puerto
Rico 1986); Sparlingv. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635,638 (9th Cir. 1988) (expressly holding
that 9 U.S.C. § 3 does not preclude dismissal); Hoffman v. Fid. & Deposit Co. ofMd. , 734 F. Supp.
192, 195 (D.N.J. 1990); Dancu v. Coopers & Lybrand, 778 F. Supp. 832, 835 (E.D. Pa. 1991)}.
Because the parties agree that all issues in this case are appropriately submitted to arbitration, the
Court finds that the action should be dismissed, not stayed pending arbitration.

Plaintiff's

arguments that the action should be stayed, not dismissed, because the arbitrator may be impartial
or biased are not well taken. The Fifth Circuit has stated: "Following the [United States] Supreme
Court's lead, we 'decline to indulge the presumption that parties in an arbitral body conducting a
proceeding would be unable or unwilling to retain competent, conscientious and impartial
arbitrators.''' Armstrong v. Associates Int'l Holdings Corp., 242 F. App'x 955, 959 (5th Cir.
2007) (per curiam) (quoting Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 30, 111 S. Ct.
1647, 114 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1991) (internal citation omitted)}. Plaintiff's concerns that she will not be
able to seek judicial review of the arbitration decision are also not well taken. As stated by
defense counsel, the FAA permits parties to arbitration agreements to bring a separate proceeding
in a district court to challenge the outcome of arbitration. See Alford, 975 F.2d at 1164.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration
[4] is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED in favor of arbitration.
THIS, the

I if

p-

day of AUf!}lst,

2~

n

~;JJ~

SENIOR JUDGE
3