111 F.4th 895
8th Cir.2024Background
- Eniola Famuyide sued Chipotle, alleging sexual assault and harassment in the workplace, as well as various Minnesota state law claims related to her employment.
- The alleged assault occurred in November 2021, and Famuyide subsequently took a leave of absence.
- The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 prohibits enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements for disputes arising or accruing on or after March 3, 2022.
- Famuyide's legal counsel communicated with Chipotle in February 2022 regarding potential claims but did not formally assert any or demand compensation at that time.
- The district court found that the dispute arose after March 3, 2022, and denied Chipotle’s motion to compel arbitration; Chipotle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispute arose before or after March 3, 2022 for purposes of the Act | Dispute did not arise until after March 3, 2022, so Act applies | Dispute arose when the conduct happened in Nov 2021 | Dispute did not arise until after March 3, 2022 |
| Whether pre-litigation communications established a dispute | Letters were investigatory and did not assert claims or demands | Letters constituted a dispute since they mentioned action | No dispute was established by Feb. 2022 letters |
| Whether post-record evidence (March 1, 2022 letter) should be considered | Not in the record, should not be considered | Due Process requires court to consider post-record evidence | Court refused to consider evidence not in district court record |
| Validity of predispute arbitration agreement under the Act | Arbitration provision unenforceable if dispute arises after 3/3/22 | Arbitration should be enforced if conduct pre-dates Act | Arbitration provision unenforceable at plaintiff’s election |
Key Cases Cited
- Meriwether v. Caraustar Packaging Co., 326 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2003) (appellate court generally will not consider evidence not presented to the district court)
- Love v. United States, 949 F.3d 406 (8th Cir. 2020) (rarely exercised exception to rule excluding new evidence on appeal)