Johnson v. Orkin, LLC, 928 F. Supp. 2d 989

Background

Johnson, an African-American male with an arrest record, sues Orkin entities alleging Title VII IHRA discrimination and retaliation.
Johnson signed multiple arbitration-related documents as employment conditions: Agreement to Arbitrate, Employment Agreement, and DRP, incorporated into the employment relationship.
Defendants move to dismiss or compel arbitration; Johnson moves to stay and strike the motion.
OPC and OEI are not separate legal entities and are not named in EEOC/IDHR proceedings; Orkin is the only proper defendant for arbitration.
The Court must decide (a) whether OPC/OEI can be compelled to arbitrate and (b) whether the arbitration agreements cover all of Johnson’s claims, leading to arbitration and dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who are the proper arbitral parties?	Orkin is the only proper defendant; OPC and OEI lack legal existence and were not named in charges.	Orkin is the proper defendant; OPC and OEI are not bound by arbitration because they did not agree and were not charged.	Orkin only; OPC and OEI dismissed from the suit.
Do Johnson's claims fall within the arbitration agreements?	All claims arise from Johnson’s employment and are within the scope of the arbitration agreements and DRP.	Arbitration agreements and DRP cover disputes arising from employment process and terms; statutory Title VII/IHRA claims fall within scope.	Yes; Johnson's Title VII and IHRA claims are subject to arbitration under the agreements.
Should the case be stayed or dismissed after compelling arbitration?	Stay pending arbitration under §3; preserve court resources.	Dismiss all claims because all are arbitrable.	Court dismisses the action as all claims are arbitrable; compels arbitration and dismisses case.

Key Cases Cited

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1991) (arbitration of statutory Title VII claims enforceable)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1985) (arb policy is emphatic; arbitration is default for private contracts)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) (federal policy favoring arbitration; enforceability of arbitration agreements)
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1967) (fraud in the inducement of arbitration limited to making of arbitration clause)
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2006) (only challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement itself are relevant)
Rent-A-Center, West,, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (U.S. 2010) (scope and enforceability of arbitration agreements; look to contract law)
Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 130 S. Ct. 2847 (U.S. 2010) (court determines arbitrability; arbitration clause coverage)
First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (judicial determination of arbitrability when dispute exists)
Continental Casualty Co. v. American National Insurance Co., 417 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2005) (instructive on jurisdictional treatment of arbitrability)
Melena v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 219 Ill.2d 135 (Illinois 2006) (mandatory arbitration agreements in employment context enforceable under Illinois law)
Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (EEOC/IDHR charging limitations; Title VII claims relate to employment disputes)
Koveleskie v. SBC Capital Mkts., Inc., 167 F.3d 361 (7th Cir. 1999) (strong encouragement of arbitration for Title VII claims)
Tinder v. Pinkerton Sec., 305 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2002) (triable issue required to avoid arbitration; standard akin to summary judgment)