Breckel v. Alexa Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER granting 7 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. The Court DISMISSES this matter on the docket, such that this action may be pursued through the arbitration process the parties selected in their arbitration agreement. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/3/2013. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
AMANDA BRECKEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALEXA ENTERPRISES, INC.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO.

1:12-CV-00627

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss

or

Stay

Proceedings

Pending

Arbitration

(doc.

7),

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (doc. 11), and Defendant’s Reply
(doc. 16).

For the reasons indicated herein, the Court GRANTS

Defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff’s Complaint involves claims that she suffered
sexual

harassment,

discrimination,

and

retaliation

while

an

employee of Defendant’s franchise pizza restaurant (doc. 1).

In

the instant motion, Defendant seeks to dismiss or stay this matter
and

to

Compel

Arbitration

in

accordance

with

an

arbitration

agreement that Plaintiff signed during the course of her employment
(doc.

7).

Such

agreement

indicated

that

arbitration

was

a

condition of employment and was “the mandatory and exclusive means
by which those problems may be resolved,” and that “all legal
claims or disputes covered by the Agreement must be submitted to
binding Arbitration” (Id.).

The agreement also referenced a

Dispute Resolution Handbook in which arbitration procedures were

explained, that Plaintiff acknowledged to “have received and read
or. . .had an opportunity to read” (Id.).

Such booklet expressly

names the claims Plaintiff raises in this case as covered by the
agreement (Id.).
Plaintiff claims this matter is properly before the Court
because there is a lack of evidence that she made a knowing and
voluntary waiver of her rights (doc. 11).

She claims she does not

remember reading the Agreement, and moreover, that she never saw a
copy of the Dispute Resolution Handbook (Id.). In fact, she argues
Defendant engaged in “overreaching,” having “hustled” her into
signing the agreement when she, as a high school dropout, was asked
to do so to update files (Id.).
trial

so

as

to

determine

Plaintiff therefore seeks a bench
whether

Plaintiff

knowingly

and

voluntarily waived her right to pursue her claims in Court (Id.).
Defendant replies that not only is there a lack of
evidence that Plaintiff was under duress or defrauded into signing
the agreement, but that in the course of her employment, she
regularly signed similar arbitration agreements with new employees
in her role as a manager on behalf of the company (doc. 16).
Defendant further contends there is no requirement under the law
that

the

Court

resolve

the

question

of

arbitration,

as

the

arbitrator can make such determination (Id. citing Maestle v. Best
Buy Co., 100 Ohio St. 3d 330 at ¶18, 800 N.E. 2d 7 (Ohio 2003)).
Finally, Defendant invokes the well-established principle that

2

federal law favors arbitration for the resolution of employment
disputes (Id. citing 9 U.S.C. §2, Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v.
Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 221 (1985)).
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds Defendant’s
position well-taken in all respects.

There is no evidence that

Plaintiff was in some way improperly duped or defrauded into
signing the arbitration agreement.

In fact, the evidence shows

that she repeatedly entered into such agreements on behalf of the
company

with

new

employees

in

her

role

as

a

manager.

The

provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, as well as
a host of case law, spell out the

well-established principles

supporting the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Buckeye

Check

(2006),

Cashing,

Inc.

v.

Cardegna,

546

U.S.

440,

443

Seawright v. American General Financial Services, Inc., 507 F.3d
967, 970 (6th Cir. 2007), Picard v. Credit Solutions, Inc., 564 F.3d
1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2009)).

The Court sees no basis in this case

to refuse to enforce the parties’ agreement or further examine the
question of the validity of Plaintiff’s waiver.

The Court notes

that its dismissal of this case does not deny Plaintiff review of
her claims, but merely serves as an enforcement of the proper
arbitral forum.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss or Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration (doc. 7), and
DISMISSES this matter on the docket, such that this action may be

3

pursued through the arbitration process the parties selected in
their arbitration agreement.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2013

s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

4