Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
785 F. Supp. 2d 394
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Chen-Oster, Parisi, and Orlich allege gender discrimination by Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. under Title VII and NYC HRL.
- Parisi signed an employment agreement containing an arbitration clause that selects NYSE/NASD or AAA for arbitration of Employment Related Matters.
- Plaintiffs filed EEOC charges and then this putative class action on September 16, 2010 seeking relief for themselves and all similarly situated female employees.
- Goldman moved to stay Parisi's claims and compel individual arbitration; plaintiffs sought discovery regarding Goldman’s arbitration practices, which the court had previously limited.
- The court addressed whether the gateway arbitrability question is for the court and whether the contract allows class arbitration, concluding the arbitration clause governs Parisi's claims and class arbitration is not permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides gateway arbitrability | Parisi argues court should decide arbitrability | Goldman agrees court should decide gateway | Court decides gateway arbitrability |
| Scope of arbitration clause | Arbitration clause does not cover class or certain claims | Clause covers Employment Related Matters broadly | Arbitration clause encompasses claims related to employment; plaintiff's discrimination claims fall within scope |
| Conflict with forum selection clause | Forum clause creates ambiguity allowing court forum for class claims | Forum clause is complementary and does not undermine arbitration | No ambiguity; resolve in favor of arbitration; forum clause does not defeat arbitration |
| Availability of class arbitration under Stolt-Nielsen | Silence on class arbitration could permit class treatment | Silence does not imply class arbitration; Stolt-Nielsen governs | Class arbitration not available; arbitration must be individual; class claims waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010) (court decides gateway arbitrability when not delegated)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 83 (2002) (narrow scope of arbitrability questions)
- Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) (contract interpretation vs. arbitration scope; class arbitration usual)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (cannot infer class arbitration authority from mere arbitration clause)
- American Express Merchants' Litigation, 634 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2011) (vindication of statutory rights analysis; class waivers may be unenforceable)
- American Express I, 554 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2009) (class action waiver may be unenforceable when it defeats statutory rights)
- Sinnett v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 319 F. Supp. 2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (presumption favoring arbitration; scope governs outcomes)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (FAA and arbitration policy; arbitration agreements can be enforced for statutory claims)
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (1995) (forum and choice-of-law provisions; enforce arbitration)