Thomas v. Qdoba Mexican Grill
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 17 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 3/21/2013. (llw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12CV66-B-S
QDOBA MEXICAN GRILL
This cause comes before the court upon the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for
Summary Judgment Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. Upon due consideration of the
motion, the court is ready to rule.
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, Mario Thomas, was hired as a cook by the defendant, Go Foods, LLC,
d/b/a Qdoba Mexican Grill, a restaurant in Southaven, Mississippi, on March 12, 2010. Thomas,
an African-American, alleges that during his employment he suffered disparate treatment from
similarly situated white employees because of his race in violation of Title VII. He was
terminated on September 13, 2010, and submitted his charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) the next day. The EEOC issued his notice of
right to sue on November 30, 2011. The plaintiff filed the present action in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on February 24, 2012. That court
transferred the case to this district court on April 13, 2012.
Upon his hiring, the plaintiff executed an “Agreement and Receipt for Dispute Resolution
Program” and received the defendant’s “Dispute Resolution Program Booklet.” Under the
agreement, both parties are required to submit “all legal claims . . . to binding arbitration.” The
parties agreed “that this binding arbitration will be the sole and exclusive final remedy for
resolving any such claim or dispute.” The plaintiff did not follow the agreement which requires
a request for administrative and executive review of the applicable employment action, followed
by a request for arbitration. He instead submitted his charge to the EEOC and, upon notice of
right to sue, filed the present action. The defendant has moved to dismiss pursuant to the
The Mississippi Supreme Court “has recognized that arbitration is favored and firmly
embedded in both our federal and state laws.” Vicksburg Partners, LP v. Stephens, 911 So. 2d
507, 513 (Miss. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Covenant Health & Rehab. of Picayune,
LP v. Estate of Moulds ex rel. Braddock, 14 So. 3d 695 (Miss. 2009). “[A]ny doubts concerning
the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at
hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like
defense to arbitrability.” East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 826 So. 2d 709, 713 (Miss. 2002).
Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration agreements “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. In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration under the
FAA, a court must make a two-pronged inquiry. East Ford, 826 So. 2d at 713. “The first prong
has two considerations: (1) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement and (2) whether the
parties’ dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement.” Id. Under the second prong,
the question addressed is “whether legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement foreclosed
arbitration of those claims.” Id. (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth,
Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985)). “[A]pplicable contract defenses available under state contract
law such as fraud, duress, and unconscionability may be asserted to invalidate the arbitration
agreement without offending the Federal Arbitration Act.” Id.
The plaintiff has filed no response in opposition to the defendant’s motion. The court
finds that the subject arbitration agreement is valid and that the plaintiff’s claims fall squarely
within the scope of the broad language of the agreement. Further, the court finds no external
legal constraints which would foreclose arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims.
Both the Fifth Circuit and this court have enforced Mississippi arbitration agreements in
Title VII cases. See May v. Higbee Company, 372 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2004) (reversing district
court’s denial of employer’s motion to compel arbitration in Title VII action); Blake v. Murphy
Oil, USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3717245 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 14, 2010) (dismissing Title VII action based
on enforceable arbitration agreement between employer and employee); Green v. W.R.M. &
Associates, Ltd., 174 F. Supp. 2d 459 (N.D. Miss. 2001) (dismissing Title VII action based on
arbitration agreement). The court finds that the case should be dismissed based on the subject
The defendant also asks the court to award attorneys’ fees in accordance with the
arbitration agreement. The court declines to do so. Mississippi courts generally afford a pro se
litigant some degree of leeway. See, e.g., Goodin v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 772 So. 2d 1051,
1054 (Miss. 2000). While this leeway typically applies to standards in pleading, the court finds
that the circumstances of this case warrant an extension of that benefit of the doubt to the pro se
plaintiff here. The defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees is, therefore, denied.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the defendant’s motion to dismiss is well
taken and should be granted with the exception of the defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees
which will be denied. A separate order in accord with this opinion shall issue this day.
This, the 21st day of March, 2013.
/s/ Neal Biggers
NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?