Gove v. CAREER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CORP.
824 F. Supp. 2d 205
D. Me.2011Background
- Gove sues for pregnancy/sex discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act and Title VII after not being hired for a Medical Clerk position at CSD during a transition from TDC to CSD.
- CSD seeks to dismiss/stay and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
- Gove submitted an employment application referencing an Arbitration Agreement and stating its procedure would be provided; the agreement was not attached.
- Gove was interviewed while visibly pregnant but was not hired; CSD continued to seek another Medical Clerk.
- The Court analyzes whether the Gove Application creates a valid, unambiguous agreement to arbitrate disputes for a non-employee applicant.
- The Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss/Stay and to Compel Arbitration; finds no valid arbitration agreement covering a rejected applicant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims? | Gove argues the Application is ambiguous and does not bind non-employees. | CSD contends the Application adopts the Arbitration Agreement for pre-employment disputes. | No valid agreement to arbitrate as to non-employees. |
| Does the Gove Application unambiguously bind a rejected applicant to arbitration? | Ambiguities favor construction against the drafter. | Arbitration clause applies to pre-employment disputes. | Ambiguity favors plaintiff; does not bind Gove. |
| Should Maine contract-interpretation principles be applied to resolve arbitratability? | Apply ordinary contract-formation principles with ambiguous language construed against drafter. | Arbitration questions are governed by federal FAA with presumption of arbitrability. | Court applies Maine principles; no arbitration here. |
| Is the FAA invoked properly to compel arbitration where no agreement exists? | No, because no agreement. | Arbitration clause could cover pre-employment disputes if interpreted. | FAA relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelletier v. Yellow Trans., Inc., 503 F. Supp. 2d 397 (D. Me. 2007) (court applies Maine contract principles to arbitration)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (contract formation governs arbitrability)
- Barrett v. McDonald Investments, Inc., 870 A.2d 146 (Me. 2005) (ambiguities construed against drafter in take-it-or-leave-it contracts)
- VIP, Inc. v. First Tree Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 770 A.2d 95 (Me. 2001) (Maine broad presumption in favor of arbitrability)
- Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 170 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (Title VII arbitration agreements allowed if waiver valid)
- Combined Energies v. CCI, Inc., 514 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2008) (three-part inquiry for arbitration agreements)