Gove v. Career Systems Development Corp.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14653
1st Cir.2012Background
- Gove applied for a CSD position during the TDC-to-CSD transition tied to Loring Job Corps services.
- The application contained a pre-employment arbitration clause stating disputes arising in the employment process would be resolved by arbitration, with a copy available at the office.
- Gove was interviewed while visibly pregnant and not hired; the position remained open.
- Gove filed a Maine Human Rights Commission complaint; MHRC found reasonable grounds for pregnancy discrimination and Gove then sued in district court.
- The district court held the arbitration clause ambiguous as to coverage of non-hired applicants and construed the ambiguity against the drafter; CSD appealed.
- The panel affirmed the district court's decision, applying Maine contract-law interpretation of the clause and construing ambiguities against the drafter; the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the arbitration clause broad enough to cover non-hired applicants? | Gove argues the clause covers only disputes arising after employment, not pre-hire non-employment. | CSD contends the clause covers all pre-employment disputes with applicants. | Ambiguity exists; not compelled to arbitrate. |
| Should Maine contract law govern the interpretation of the clause over federal arbitration policy? | Maine law should apply, treating ambiguities against the drafter. | Federal policy favoring arbitration should govern upon a valid agreement. | Ambiguities resolved under Maine law; against the drafter; arbitration not required. |
| Is the case a scope question or a validity question under FAA analysis? | The issue concerns scope of the agreement. | The arbitration clause's existence is valid, but its scope is disputed. | This is a scope question; the clause is ambiguous about coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett v. McDonald Invs., Inc., 870 A.2d 146 (Me. 2005) (ambiguous arbitration clauses construed against the drafter; emphasis on unequal bargaining power)
- Sullivan v. Porter, 861 A.2d 625 (Me. 2004) (contract interpretation under Maine law applicable to arbitration terms)
- Johnson v. Circuit City Stores, 148 F.3d 373 (4th Cir. 1998) (touchstone for clarity of broad employment-arbitration language in pre-employment context)
- Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Co. v. Kirschhofer, 226 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2000) (presumption in favor of arbitration applies to scope questions; significance in adhesion contracts)
- Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006) (established rule that federal policy favoring arbitration governs scope questions over contra proferentem in adhesion contracts)