822 F.3d 536
10th Cir.2016Background
- Scott Bonn, born with Down syndrome, was employed by Papa John’s; his mother served as his limited guardian and signed an employment arbitration agreement on his behalf.
- Papa John’s later barred Bonn’s job coach and terminated him; Bonn filed an ADA charge with the EEOC.
- The EEOC sued Papa John’s under the ADA (using Title VII enforcement provisions); Bonn moved to intervene as the aggrieved employee under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
- Papa John’s argued Bonn must arbitrate because his mother signed the arbitration agreement; the district court denied Bonn’s motion to intervene and ordered him to arbitrate.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed the denial of intervention, holding Title VII grants an unconditional statutory right to intervene that Rule 24(a)(1) obliges the court to honor, regardless of any arbitration agreement.
- The court dismissed Bonn’s appeal of the order compelling arbitration for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the EEOC’s claim remained pending in district court, so the arbitration order was not a final decision under 9 U.S.C. § 16.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonn may intervene in the EEOC enforcement action | Bonn: Title VII gives him an unconditional statutory right to intervene as the aggrieved employee | Papa John’s: Arbitration agreement bars Bonn from litigating; thus intervention should be denied | Held: Bonn has an unconditional statutory right to intervene under § 2000e-5(f)(1); district court erred in denying intervention under Rule 24(a)(1) |
| Whether the arbitration agreement prevents intervention under Rule 24(a)(1) | Bonn: Rule 24(a)(1) requires intervention when statute gives an unconditional right, irrespective of arbitration | Papa John’s: Arbitration agreement supersedes participation in court; Bonn must be compelled to arbitrate | Held: Arbitration does not eliminate the unconditional statutory right to intervene; court must allow intervention and then may address arbitrability as appropriate |
| Whether appellate review of the district court’s order compelling arbitration is available now | Bonn: The combined denial of intervention plus arbitration order effectively ends his participation and should be immediately appealable | Papa John’s: Arbitration order is final as to Bonn and properly appealable | Held: No appellate jurisdiction — order compelling arbitration is not a “final decision” under § 16 because the EEOC’s claim remains pending in district court; this portion of the appeal is dismissed |
| Whether collateral-order doctrine supports immediate appeal of arbitration order | Bonn: Did not press collateral-order doctrine on appeal | Papa John’s: N/A | Held: Court declines to address collateral-order doctrine; appellant bears burden to invoke it and did not do so |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (ADA enforcement uses Title VII procedures)
- Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519 (1947) (statutory right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(1) is absolute)
- Green Tree Financial Corp.–Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (appellate review of arbitration orders under 9 U.S.C. § 16; finality requirement)
- Armijo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 72 F.3d 793 (10th Cir. 1995) (arbitration orders are appealable when they dispose of the entire case)
- EEOC v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 347 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2003) (Title VII enforcement framework applies to ADA suits)
- EEOC v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y, 479 F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussed arbitration in EEOC enforcement context)
- New Mexico v. Trujillo, 813 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 2016) (final decision must dispose of all claims by all parties)