Colón v. AT & T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc.
261 F. Supp. 3d 251
D.P.R.2017Background
- Rivera, an Assistant Store Manager at AT&T for ~18 years, sued for wrongful termination, alleging discrimination and retaliation under ADEA, Title VII, §1981, and Puerto Rico Laws 100, 80, and 69.
- Defendants (AT&T and three supervisors) moved to compel arbitration under AT&T’s Management Arbitration Agreement and to stay or dismiss the case.
- AT&T had implemented an opt-out arbitration program and sent notice emails (Nov 30, 2011; Dec 17, 2011; Jan 17, 2012) with a link to the full Agreement and a 60-day opt-out deadline.
- Evidence submitted: the Agreement, IT and HR declarations showing emails were sent to Rivera’s unique work address and that she clicked a "Review Completed" button on Jan 17, 2012; no opt-out was recorded.
- The Agreement broadly covers employment and termination disputes, explicitly listing discrimination and ADEA claims and prohibiting class actions.
- The district court concluded all four InterGen requirements were satisfied, granted the motion to compel arbitration, and dismissed the case with prejudice (rather than merely staying it).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arbitration agreement | Rivera: no explicit assent; thus no valid contract | AT&T: written Agreement exists and is valid under FAA | Court: Agreement valid |
| Who may invoke the clause | Rivera: n/a | AT&T: Agreement applies to AT&T and its present/former officers, employees, agents | Court: Defendants may invoke clause |
| Whether Rivera is bound (notice/consent) | Rivera: never explicitly agreed; cannot be compelled | AT&T: sent explicit opt-out notice; Rivera received emails, had unique work email, didn’t opt out, clicked "Review Completed" | Court: Rivera received explicit notice, did not opt out, and is bound |
| Scope of arbitrability and remedy (stay vs. dismissal) | Rivera: statutory claims should not be waived to arbitration | AT&T: Agreement covers employment discrimination and ADEA; arbitration is final and binding | Court: Claims fall within Agreement; arbitration appropriate; case dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (FAA places arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts)
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (court must enforce valid arbitration agreements)
- McCarthy v. Azure, 22 F.3d 351 (1st Cir. 1994) (existence of arbitration agreement based on parties' consent)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes it has not agreed to submit)
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574 (arbitration is a matter of consent)
- InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2003) (four-part test to compel arbitration)
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (ADEA and other statutory claims may be subject to arbitration)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (statutory claims are arbitrable unless Congress precludes waiver of judicial remedies)
- Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 133 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 1998) (district court may dismiss rather than stay when all claims are arbitrable)
- Next Step Med. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Int’l, 619 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2010) (district court may dismiss suit if all claims are arbitrable)