Rodojev v. Menards Inc. et al

Filing 8

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted and plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/20/15. (LC,S) re 6 , 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Joseph G. Rodojev,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Menard’s Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:15 CV 1737
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

Introduction
This matter is before the Court upon defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 6)
and plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 7). For the
following reasons, defendants’ motion is GRANTED and plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Facts
Plaintiff Joseph Rodojev filed this pro se Complaint against defendants Menard’s, Inc.,
John Menard, John Menard, Jr., and Scott Collette. The Complaint alleges that plaintiff was
employed by Menard’s Inc. until his termination on March 14, 2015. Plaintiff asserts that his
termination violated Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age
1

Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and constituted harassment and wrongful
termination.
Defendants seek dismissal on the basis that plaintiff must be compelled to submit his
dispute to arbitration.
Discussion
Upon entering into his employment with Menard’s, Inc., plaintiff signed an Employee
Agreement which states in pertinent part:
Remedy. I agree that all problems, claims, and disputes experienced within my
work area shall first be resolved as outlined in the Team Member Relations
section of the Grow With Menards Team Member Information Booklet with I
have received. If I am unable to resolve the dispute by these means, I agree to
submit to final and binding arbitration. Arbitration shall be the sole and
exclusive forum and remedy for all covered disputes of either Menard, INC
or me. Unless Menard and I agree otherwise, any arbitration proceedings will
take place in the county of my Menard’s employment where the dispute arose.
Problems, claims, or disputes subject to binding arbitration include, but are not
limited to: statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”);
Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I of the
Civil Rights Act of 1991, Americans with Disabilities Act; Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”); Family
Medical Leave Act, and non-statutory claims such as contractual claims, quasicontractual
claims, tort claims, and any and all causes of action arising under state
or common law.
(Doc. 6 Ex. A)
Defendants have demonstrated in their motion that the agreement to arbitrate is valid and
enforceable, and that plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Defendants’ reasoning is incorporated herein by reference. In response, plaintiff argues that the
agreement is void and invalid because it governs only disputes between existing employees and
Menard’s, Inc., and not those who have been terminated. The Court finds plaintiff’s assertions

2

to be unpersuasive. The arbitration agreement provides that arbitration “shall be the sole and
exclusive forum and remedy for all covered disputes” between plaintiff and Menard’s Inc. The
agreement expressly provides that claims and disputes subject to binding arbitration include Title
VII, ADA, and ADEA claims, as well as tort claims.
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed as plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration as
provided in the agreement.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted and
plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 10/20/15

3