Greaux v. Duensing, Casner, Dollison & Fitzsimmons, 3:14-cv-00060

Plaintiff Irene Greaux sued her former employer and a supervising partner alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation arising from an alleged quid pro quo sexual relationship and subsequent conduct.
Defendants moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration under a June 15, 2010 Employment Agreement containing a broad arbitration clause covering “Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach of this contract.”
The Magistrate Judge granted the motion to stay and ordered arbitration, finding the claims fell within the arbitration provision’s scope.
Plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order 17 days after it issued; Rule 72(a) requires objections within 14 days.
The District Court reviewed the timeliness issue and, alternatively, the scope of arbitrability, concluding the objection was untimely and that, on the merits, the Magistrate Judge’s scope determination was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of objection to magistrate order	Greaux filed 17 days after the order and did not excuse the lateness	Objection must be within 14 days under Rule 72(a)	Objection is untimely (filed 3 days late); denial warranted
Whether plaintiff's claims are arbitrable under the Employment Agreement	Arbitration clause should be read to cover only breaches of the express terms of the contract (i.e., contract claims), not tort/statutory employment claims	The clause covers “any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to” the employment agreement, so employment-related claims must be arbitrated	Magistrate’s conclusion that claims arise out of/relate to the employment agreement is not clearly erroneous; claims are arbitrable
Applicability of presumption of arbitrability	Greaux relied on a narrow reading of the clause rather than presumption	Defendants relied on broad clause language and factual ties to employment	Court noted presumption favors arbitration for ambiguous clauses but found clause unambiguous and broad enough to cover the disputes
Standard of review of magistrate nondispositive order	Greaux urged reversal of the magistrate’s scope determination	Defendants urged deference; reversal only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law	Magistrate’s findings upheld under the clearly erroneous/contrary to law standard

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013) (arbitration is a matter of contract; parties may agree to arbitrate disputes)
CardioNet, Inc. v. Cigna Health Corp., 751 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2014) (two-step arbitrability test: valid agreement and whether dispute falls within its language)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (presumption of arbitrability when clause is ambiguous)
Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (courts may order arbitration only where satisfied parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute)
Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth. v. Gen. Elec. Int’l Inc., 561 F. App’x 131 (3d Cir. 2014) (objections to magistrate orders compelling arbitration are subject to Rule 72(a)’s 14-day limit)