392 F. Supp. 3d 645
S.D.W. Va2019Background
- Plaintiff worked 13 years as chief meteorologist; in Aug 2017 he signed a one‑year employment agreement containing an arbitration clause.
- Plaintiff was terminated June 1, 2018 and alleges age discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (HRA) and the federal ADEA.
- Defendant moved to compel arbitration and dismiss (treated as motion to compel arbitration under the FAA); Plaintiff opposed, arguing the arbitration clause is substantively unconscionable and impairs statutory rights.
- The agreement included a provision requiring the losing party to pay “all fees and expenses of the arbitration” and a clause stating that if the arbitrator is satisfied the employee engaged in the complained‑of conduct, the arbitrator must uphold the employer’s action.
- Court found Plaintiff failed to plead procedural unconscionability but identified specific contract terms that may be unenforceable as inconsistent with statutory remedies; severability clause justified striking only the fee‑shifting terms and compelling arbitration of remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of arbitration clause generally | Barach: clause is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable | Employer: clause covers dispute and compels dismissal/arbitration | Court: Plaintiff failed to plead procedural unconscionability; arbitration enforceable except for specific unenforceable provisions |
| Fee‑shifting provision (loser pays all fees) | Unenforceable because inconsistent with HRA and ADEA (statutes only authorize awarding fees to prevailing plaintiff or to plaintiff as discretionary) | Provision is part of arbitration agreement and should be enforced | Court: Fee‑shifting provisions inconsistent with HRA/ADEA are unenforceable and severed |
| Clause requiring arbitrator to "uphold" employer if employee engaged in conduct | Clause alters analytical framework and forecloses plaintiff showing pretext under ADEA/HRA | Clause is interpretable and may only address remedies/discipline; arbitrator should construe it | Court: Declines to strike clause; leaves interpretation to arbitrator (subject to review) |
| Severability/remedy | Because fee provisions are unenforceable, entire arbitration agreement should fail | Agreement contains severability clause; unenforceable terms can be severed | Court: Severed fee provisions; remainder of arbitration agreement enforced; action stayed and parties ordered to arbitrate |
Key Cases Cited
- Scovill v. WSYX/ABC, Sinclair Broad. Group, Inc., 425 F.3d 1012 (6th Cir. 2005) (arbitration provision open to interpretation should be left to arbitrator to construe)
- PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (when an arbitration clause is reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that preserves statutory rights, courts should defer to arbitrator)
- In re Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litig., 505 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2007) (arbitration provisions inconsistent with substantive statutory rights are unenforceable; district court should consider severance)
- Rent‑A‑Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (arbitration is primarily a matter of contract; FAA places arbitration agreements on equal footing)
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 571 U.S. 49 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (forum‑selection clauses enforced via forum non conveniens; distinguishes enforcement mechanisms for forum clauses)
- Andrews v. America’s Living Ctrs., LLC, 827 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2016) (statutory silence bars awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendant under ADEA)