Turner v. Fiserv Solutions
Filing
20
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, [Doc No. 13 ], is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for January 9, 2018 is vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively close this matter. The parties shall notify the Court of the resolution of the arbitration in a timely matter. Further Court action in this matter will be determined after such notice.. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 12/15/17. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALEXIS TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FISERV SOLUTIONS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:16CV2158 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and to
Compel Arbitration, [Doc. No. 8] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay Proceedings, [Doc No. 13]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to
Compel Arbitration is granted and the motion to stay is granted.
Background
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant claiming she was discriminated
against, harassed, and retaliated against based on her age and alleged disability in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
(“ADEA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et
seq., (“Rehabilitation Act”).
Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. She executed a “Mutual
Agreement to Arbitrate Claims,” which provides that any and all disputes arising
from or related to Plaintiff’s employment, including discrimination, harassment or
the termination of employment shall be arbitrated.
Considerations to Compel Arbitration
Before compelling arbitration, a district court must determine (1) whether
there is a valid arbitration agreement and (2) whether the particular dispute falls
within the terms of that agreement. Robinson v. EOR-ARK, LLC, 841 F.3d 781,
783 (8th Cir. 2016). Any doubts raised in construing contract language on
arbitrability should be resolved in favor of arbitration. CD Partners, LLC v.
Grizzle, 424 F.3d 795, 795 (8th Cir. 2005).
Under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), “written arbitration
agreements [are] valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.” Anderson v. Carlisle, 129
S.Ct. 1896, 1901 (2009). Section 2 “creates substantive federal law regarding the
enforceability of arbitration agreements, requiring courts to place such agreements
upon the same footing as other contracts.” Id. (quotations omitted). “Section 3, in
turn, allows litigants already in federal court to invoke agreements made
enforceable by Section 2.” Id. “That provision requires the court, on application of
one of the parties, to stay the action if it involves an issue referable to arbitration
under an agreement in writing.” Id.
2
The Arbitration Agreement is “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable”
under the FAA. The dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant falls within the terms
of those Agreements. The dispute must go to arbitration for the claims. The parties
agree that this matter should be arbitrated, however, Defendant seeks dismissal of
this action and while Plaintiff seeks a stay until the arbitration is completed. The
Court sees no harm in staying the matter to ensure the timely arbitration of this
matter. Therefore, the stay will be granted.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings will be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
and Stay Proceedings, [Doc No. 13], is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for January 9, 2018 is
vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
administratively close this matter. The parties shall notify the Court of the
resolution of the arbitration in a timely matter. Further Court action in this matter
3
will be determined after such notice.
Dated this 15th day of December, 2017.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?