Brewer v. Brand Energy Solutions, LLC
3:10-cv-00293
W.D.N.C.Nov 19, 2010Background
- Brewer sued Brand Energy entities in state court for breach of contract, wage/hour claims, retaliation, and wrongful termination.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration under Brand’s Dispute Resolution Program.
- Brewer signed the Dispute Resolution Program in March 2006 as a condition of employment, agreeing to arbitration for covered disputes.
- Defendants argue the program governs all claims Brewer asserts and that arbitration should proceed under FAA.
- Plaintiff disputes enforceability/timeliness of arbitration and contends NC law allows state court action; court must decide arbitrability.
- Court concludes there is a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute and grants motion to stay and arbitrate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispute is subject to arbitration under the program | Brewer argues arbitration not appropriate under NC law or scope of agreement | Brand Energy argues a valid arbitration agreement covers all claims Brewer asserts | Yes; valid agreement exists and covers the dispute |
| Whether NC law precludes arbitration between employer and employee | NC wage/hour and retaliation acts permit state court action and preclude arbitration | Acts do not preclude arbitration; FAA governs and favors arbitration | No preclusion; arbitration permitted under FAA and NC law |
| Whether the timing of arbitration request was improper or untimely | Defendants failed to initiate arbitration within 90 days after notice letter | No strict 90-day initiation deadline; motion to compel timely after removal | Timeliness is not a barrier; arbitration proper |
| Whether policy favors arbitration and scope supports arbitration | Policy considerations not sufficient to defeat arbitration | Both federal and state policy strongly favor arbitration | Yes; policy favors arbitration |
| Whether the action should be stayed and referred to arbitration | Arbitration should not proceed given dispute not properly arbitrated | Arbitration should proceed; stay warranted | Yes; stay proceedings and compel arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc., 350 U.S. 198 (1956) (arbitration may be compelled where appropriate)
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (FAA broadly construes arbitration agreements)
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (strong federal policy favoring arbitration; doubts resolved in favor)
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) (arbitrability issues resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Long v. Silver, 248 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2001) (heavy presumption of arbitrability; scope construed in favor)
- Raspet v. Buck, 147 N.C.App. 133, 554 S.E.2d 676 (2001) (two-pronged analysis for arbitrability; favor arbitration)
- Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueen, 76 N.C.App. 16, 331 S.E.2d 726 (1985) (state policy same as federal; doubt resolved in favor of arbitration)
- PaineWebber Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507 (3d Cir. 1990) (arbitration provisions enforceable under federal law)
- Ellison v. Alexander, 700 S.E.2d 102 (N.C. App. 2010) (North Carolina approach to arbitration follows federal guidance)