Delock v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
883 F. Supp. 2d 784
E.D. Ark.2012Background
- Court previously decided issues from its March Order regarding enforceability of a class-action waiver in light of Horton.
- Dispute centers on whether the Delock/Securitas arbitration agreement permits class, collective, or representative actions.
- The agreement contains a non-severable class-action waiver clause paired with a general severability clause and a silent fallback position.
- Court acknowledges conflict between NLRA (concerted activity rights) and FAA (arbitration enforcement) after Horton.
- Court examines whether CompuCredit/Gilmer/Concepcion line of cases requires enforcing arbitration over collective rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severability of the class waiver | Delock/employee contends waiver is severable if unenforceable. | Delock argues waiver is non-severable and enforceable only if consented to collectively. | Waiver enforceable; severability clause interpreted to render class waiver inseparable. |
| NLRA vs FAA conflict viability | NLRA grants concerted activity rights that bar class arbitration. | FAA preempts NLRA to enforce arbitration as agreed. | FAA prevails; arbitration enforceable despite NLRA concerted-right concerns. |
| Horton impact on enforceability | Horton prohibits forcing collective actions; class waiver invalid. | Horton dictates need for enforceable class-action waiver terms under FAA. | Horton conflict resolved in favor of enforcing individual arbitration under FAA. |
| Interlocutory appeal certification | This is a controlling question of law suitable for immediate appeal. | Appeal should wait until final judgment; not appropriate for § 1292(b). | Order certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); stay of arbitration issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) (FAA interpretation aligns with individual arbitration of statutory claims)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (arbitration requires consent; class arbitration not implied)
- Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (FAA preempts state rules prohibiting class-action waivers)
- Pyett v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 247 (2009) (arbitration agreements can bind union-negotiated claims)
- Carter v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., 362 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2004) (FLSA claims arbitrable; collective actions governed by statute, not procedure)