Thompson v. Red Bull Racing, Inc

Filing 17

ORDER that on or before fifteen (15) days from entry of this Order, the parties shall respond to the issue regarding arbitration as set out above. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on May 19, 2011. (jhg)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:10cv135

JEFFERY THOMPSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
RED BULL RACING, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER

)

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte to require response.
The Plaintiff initiated this action claiming racial discrimination in
employment on June 28, 2010. [Doc. 1]. On May 2, 2011, the Defendant
moved for summary judgment and attached numerous exhibits to the motion.
[Doc. 13]. Among the documents is a copy of the Plaintiff’s application for
employment. [Doc. 13-10, at 20-42]. On the last page of that application,
there is a provision for arbitration.
I acknowledge that the company promotes a voluntary system of
alternative dispute resolution, which involves binding arbitration
to resolve all disputes which may arise out of the employment
context. Because of the mutual benefits ... that private binding
arbitration can provide both the company and myself, I voluntarily
agree to sign the Company’s agreement which includes

information which explains that any claim, dispute, and/or
controversy (including, but not limited to, any claims of
discrimination and harassment, whether they be based on Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, as well as all other
state or federal laws or regulations) that would otherwise require
or allow resort to any court ... between myself and the company
... arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection
whatsoever with my ... employment with ... the company, ... shall
be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration
under the Federal Arbitration Act[.] ... I HEREBY VOLUNTARILY
AGREE TO REVIEW AND SIGN THE COMPANY’S BINDING
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH
I AND THE COMPANY GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY
JURY.
[Doc. 13-10, at 25] (emphasis provided).
When parties have entered into a valid and enforceable
agreement to arbitrate their disputes and the dispute at issue falls
within the scope of that agreement, the FAA [Federal Arbitration
Act] requires federal courts to stay judicial proceedings ... and
compel arbitration in accordance with the agreement’s terms. It
is settled that the provisions of the FAA, and its policy favoring the
resolution of disputes through arbitration, apply to employment
agreements to arbitrate discrimination claims brought pursuant to
federal statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Such an
agreement is enforceable because “‘[b]y agreeing to arbitrate a
statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights
afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an
arbitral, rather than judicial, forum.’”
Murray v. United Food and Commercial Workers, 289 F.3d 297, 301-02 (4 th
Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); accord, C.B. Fleet Co., Inc. v. Aspen Ins. UK
Ltd, 743 F.Supp.2d 575 (W.D.Va. 2010).
The Court finds that the parties should address the issue of whether
arbitration of the matters at issue in this case is mandatory pursuant to the

language of the employment application, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams,
532 U.S. 105, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001) (arbitration agreement
contained in an employee application compelled arbitration of discrimination
claims); Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496 (4 th Cir. 2002), and
whether there exist any additional documents affecting the parties’ rights and
obligations with respect to arbitration of their disputes.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that on or before fifteen (15) days from
entry of this Order, the parties shall respond to the issue regarding arbitration
as set out above.
Signed: May 19, 2011