Johnson v. ARC of Jefferson County
1:11-cv-01727
N.D. Ala.Dec 8, 2011Background
- Plaintiff James E. Johnson sues ARC of Jefferson County for job discrimination in the Northern District of Alabama.
- ARC moves to dismiss and compel arbitration, or alternatively to compel arbitration and stay the action (Docs. 21, 22-1).
- Johnson opposes the motion (Doc. 23); ARC replies (Doc. 24).
- Court applies FAA policy favoring arbitration and Alabama contract principles to determine enforceability.
- Court finds the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable, but stays the case to arbitrate and retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an award.
- Parties are ordered to file joint status reports at six months and then every three months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement | Johnson contends the agreement is invalid/unenforceable. | ARC argues the agreement is valid and enforceable under FAA and state contract law. | Arbitration agreement valid and enforceable. |
| Conscionability of the arbitration agreement | Johnson asserts procedural and/or substantive unconscionability. | ARC contends no unconscionability; remedies in arbitration align with rights in court. | No procedural or substantive unconscionability found. |
| Interstate commerce connection and FAA applicability | Johnson challenges interstate commerce basis for FAA coverage. | ARC asserts sufficient interstate commerce connection. | Interstate commerce connection is sufficient for FAA coverage. |
| Disposition of the case pending arbitration | Johnson seeks litigation of the claims rather than arbitration. | Arbitration should proceed; action should be stayed. | Motion granted to stay and compel arbitration; case stayed pending arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002) (federal policy favors arbitration and liberal construction)
- Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (S. Ct. 1989) (arbitration agreements should be enforced according to their terms)
- Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2005) (statutory claims may be subject to arbitration under FAA)
- Dunes of GP, L.L.C. v. Bradford, 966 So.2d 924 (Ala. 2007) (arbitration-mandate standard akin to summary judgment)
- Scurtu v. International Student Exchange, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (S.D. Ala. 2007) (motion to compel arbitration; evidentiary burden on nonmovant)
- TranSouth Financial Corp. v. Bell, 149 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 1998) (scope and enforceability of arbitration under FAA)
- Providian Nat. Bank v. Conner, 898 So.2d 714 (Ala. 2004) (burden-shifting framework for arbitration under Alabama law)
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama v. Rigas, 923 So.2d 1077 (Ala. 2005) (burden shifting and validity of arbitration provisions under Alabama law)