Jamie Holmes v. Air Liquide USA, L.L.C.
498 F. App'x 405
5th Cir.2012Background
- Holmes sued Air Liquide for discrimination after termination in 2010.
- Air Liquide moved to compel arbitration under a 2006 ADR Agreement.
- District court granted arbitration, dismissed Holmes's claims.
- Holmes argued the Dodd-Frank Act renders the ADR Agreement unenforceable.
- This appeal challenges the district court’s arbitration ruling based on the Act; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Dodd-Frank preclude arbitration here? | Holmes argues Act invalidates ADR since it would force arbitration of all disputes. | Air Liquide contends Act does not apply to these claims. | No; Act does not apply to these disputes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banc One Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, 367 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2004) (arbitration whether agreement to arbitrate exists; standard de novo)
- American Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Orr, 294 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 2002) (steps to determine enforceability of arbitration per federal policy)
- Birdwell v. Skeen, 983 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1993) (avoid unreasonable results in interpreting statutes affecting arbitration)
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (U.S. 2006) (recognition that Congress does not alter regulatory schemes in vague ways)