Escobar-Noble v. Luxury Hotels International of Puerto Rico, Inc.
680 F.3d 118
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Hotel-employed Escobar-Noble as casino worker since 2001; two arbitration agreements signed (2001 and 2005) containing arbitration clauses.
- Escobar-Noble filed EEOC discrimination charges (sex and age) around 2007; retaliation EEOC charge followed, with right-to-sue letter issued Jan 8, 2010.
- Escobar-Noble sued in district court asserting Title VII, ADEA, and Puerto Rico labor-law claims; Hotel moved to compel arbitration and stay/dismiss.
- District court found arbitration clauses valid and enforceable and dismissed the case without prejudice.
- Appellate court must decide threshold arbitrability; review is de novo; underlying merits are not addressed.
- Court ultimately vacates district court order, remands to compel arbitration of claims with Stay/Dismissal at district court, and allocates costs to each party when appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contractual limitations shorten statutes of limitations for claims. | Escobar-Noble argues one-year limit conflicts with three-year PR statutes. | Hotel argues arbitration clause valid and ambiguously shortens limitations; arbitrator should decide. | Direct conflict exists; ambiguity may require arbitrator to decide. |
| Who decides the arbitrability of a contract-based limitation-period issue. | Court should decide public-policy conflict with statutory rights. | Arbitrator should decide if conflict is contractually shortenings not waivable. | Arbitrator must resolve the ambiguity under Anderson framework; court to decide only if no ambiguity. |
| Whether tolling by EEOC filings affects the conflict analysis. | Tolling may delay running of limitations, affecting timing of direct conflict. | tolling tolls; not determinative; remaining question is arbitrability. | If tolling negates time-bar issue, no need to resolve direct conflict; otherwise, arbitrator decides. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (narrow arbitrability categories; limits on gateway questions)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (scope of arbitrability and threshold questions)
- Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006) (two-category framework for arbitrability; scope of arbitration clause)
- Anderson v. Comcast Corp., 500 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2007) (vindication of statutory rights; contract can be scrutinized for conflict with statute)
- PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (direct conflict analysis for contractually shortened limitations)