162 So. 3d 251
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Megan Fitzpatrick, employed by Club Med as a costume designer, was sexually assaulted in her employer‑provided dormitory at Club Med’s Columbus Isle resort in the Bahamas while off duty.
- Fitzpatrick sued Club Med and affiliated entities for premises liability and negligence arising from the assault.
- Her employment agreement required internal exhaustion and, if unresolved, arbitration before the AAA in Miami for "any claim or controversy arising out of your employment," including tort claims.
- Club Med moved to compel arbitration (or alternatively to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds). The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration and denied the forum non conveniens dismissal, treating the arbitration venue clause as a waiver of forum non conveniens.
- The appellate court reviews arbitration scope de novo and examines whether the assault claim "arises out of" the employment agreement; it also examines whether the forum non conveniens challenge was waived by the arbitration venue clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fitzpatrick’s off‑duty sexual assault claim "arises out of" her employment for purposes of the arbitration clause | Fitzpatrick argued the assault was independent of employment and did not rely on the employment agreement | Club Med argued the arbitration clause covers torts "arising out of" employment including negligence and intentional wrongs, so the claim must be arbitrated in Miami | Court held the claim did not arise out of employment; arbitration clause was narrow and did not cover this off‑duty assault; denial of motion to compel arbitration affirmed |
| Whether the arbitration venue provision waived Club Med’s forum non conveniens defense | Fitzpatrick (and trial court) treated the Miami arbitration venue provision as a waiver of dismissal on forum non conveniens | Club Med argued the venue provision for arbitration did not waive its right to seek dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds | Court held the trial court erred in treating the arbitration venue clause as a waiver; reversed and remanded for Kinney‑factor analysis on forum non conveniens |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company, 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (sets factors for forum non conveniens analysis and procedural standards)
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corporation, 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999) (distinguishes narrow vs. broad arbitration clauses and scope analysis)
- Giller v. Cafeteria of South Beach Ltd., LLP, 967 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (standard of review for arbitration scope questions)
- Jones v. Halliburton Co., 583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) (focus on factual allegations to determine arbitration coverage)
- Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 657 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) (employee’s off‑duty sexual assault not subject to arbitration under crew agreement)
- Waste Management, Inc. v. Residuos Industriales Multiquim, S.A. de C.V., 372 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2004) (courts focus on complaint’s factual allegations when assessing arbitration scope)