Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, 823 F. Supp. 2d 931

Defendants move to dismiss, stay, and compel arbitration in a Title VII action brought by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege national-origin and gender discrimination, hostile environment, and state-law claims; arbitration policy is tied to Dawson Employee Benefits, LLC.
Plaintiffs signed Dawson’s employee manual Acknowledgments in June 2010 stating disputes shall be resolved by arbitration; Dawson’s manual declares arbitration for employment disputes.
Plaintiffs allege they were not given time to read the manual or the arbitration procedures before signing; testimony from Dawson witnesses corroborates orientation and reading, but not full copies.
Court applies FAA and Arizona law, reviews arbitration agreement formation and scope, and addresses defenses of lack of consideration, adhesion, unconscionability, and mutuality.
Court orders arbitration on all claims, stays the case for up to nine months, and directs prompt arbitration with status reporting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there valid consideration for arbitration?	Coup claims no consideration post-employment; agreement illusory.	At-will employment and continued employment constitute consideration.	Yes; consideration exists, support for arbitration.
Are the arbitration agreements adhesive or unconscionable?	Agreements are adhesion contracts and unconscionable.	Agreements are standard-form but enforceable; unconscionability defenses fail.	Arbitration clauses are enforceable; not unconscionable as adhesion.
Was there procedural unconscionability in signing the agreement?	No opportunity to read the manual or complete arbitration procedures before signing.	Standard form; reading time not required; evidence shows opportunity to review contents.	Not procedurally unconscionable; no meaningful surprise or lack of opportunity.
Is there mutuality of obligation in the arbitration agreement?	Arbitration obligation applies only to employees, not Dawson.	Mutuality not required where consideration is present; at-will context supports enforceability.	Mutuality not required due to consideration; agreement enforceable.
Does the FAA preempt state-law defenses to arbitration in this employment context?	State defenses should render arbitration unenforceable.	FAA preempts only defenses that apply solely to arbitration; state-law contract principles apply.	FAA governs; apply state contract principles in favor of arbitration; enforce arbitration.

Three Valleys Municipal Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991) (court reviews arbitrability and summary judgment standards in arbitration contexts)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (presumption about who decides arbitrability; not controlling here)
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) (FAA applies to employment contracts and allows arbitration of statutory claims)
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (FAA requires districts to compel arbitration when agreement exists)
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (policy favoring arbitration; limits of court review)
Cape Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Maritime, LLC, 647 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2011) (scope and interpretation of arbitration agreements; deference to arbitration)
Concepcion v. California, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (preemption concerns; arbitration defenses under FAA)
Waffle House, Inc. v. EEOC, 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (arbitration policy favors arbitration; enforceability)
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 140 Ariz. 383 (Ariz. 1984) (standardized contracts; reading obligations; reasonable expectations)
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp., 119 P.3d 1044 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (procedure unconscionability factors and consideration)