Armand Santoro v. Accenture Federal Services, LL
748 F.3d 217
4th Cir.2014Background
- Santoro, an Accenture account lead, had a 2005 employment agreement that renewed annually and contained a broad predispute arbitration clause covering “any and all disputes.”
- Santoro was terminated in 2011 at age 66 and sued Accenture in D.C. Superior Court for age discrimination; Accenture moved to compel arbitration and the court granted the motion.
- Santoro later received an EEOC right-to-sue letter and filed federal claims (ADEA, FMLA, ERISA) in the Eastern District of Virginia; Accenture again moved to compel arbitration.
- Santoro argued Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provisions (7 U.S.C. § 26(n)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(e)(2)) rendered predispute arbitration agreements unenforceable unless they carved out Dodd-Frank claims, even for non-whistleblower plaintiffs.
- The district court compelled arbitration, concluding Dodd-Frank only bars arbitration of Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims; Santoro appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding Dodd-Frank prohibits predispute arbitration only for claims “arising under” its whistleblower provisions and does not broadly invalidate arbitration of unrelated federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dodd-Frank invalidates predispute arbitration clauses that do not carve out Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims, even for non-whistleblowers | Santoro: Dodd-Frank makes any predispute arbitration agreement that would require arbitration of Dodd-Frank claims "not valid or enforceable," so such agreements are void in toto | Accenture: Dodd-Frank targets only claims "arising under" its whistleblower sections; it does not bar arbitration of unrelated federal claims | Held: Dodd-Frank bars predispute arbitration only for whistleblower claims under the statute; it does not override the FAA as to non‑Dodd‑Frank claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (arbitration agreements enforceable as contracts)
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (federal policy favoring arbitration)
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (federal statutory claims may be arbitrated absent clear contrary congressional command)
- Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (burden on party resisting arbitration to show congressional intent to preclude arbitration)
- CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (noting clarity of Dodd‑Frank’s nonarbitration language in dicta)
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (Congress does not hide major statutory changes in ancillary provisions)
- Muriithi v. Shuttle Express, Inc., 712 F.3d 173 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for arbitration‑compelling orders)