Jones, Esq. v. Landry's, Inc.
1:23-cv-09920
| S.D.N.Y. | May 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Joy Vida Jones, sued her former employers (Landry’s, Inc., et al.) for race discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement’s arbitration clause.
- Magistrate Judge Willis recommended dismissing some claims, compelling arbitration for the rest, and severing an unconscionable fee-shifting provision in the arbitration agreement.
- Both parties objected to parts of Judge Willis’s Report & Recommendation (R&R).
- Judge Woods, the presiding District Judge, ruled to address arbitrability first, declined to sever any provision, and stayed the action pending arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should rule on the motion to dismiss before addressing arbitration | Opposed—wanted merits decided first | Arbitration should come first | Arbitration must be addressed first |
| Arbitrability of Plaintiff’s claims | Argued arbitration clause was unconscionable & waived | Clause is valid & invoked timely | All claims must be arbitrated |
| Whether fee-shifting/cost provisions are unconscionable and severable | Provisions are unconscionable and should be severed; Plaintiff can't pay | Provisions should go to arbitrator | Arbitrator decides enforceability |
| Whether defendants waived the right to arbitrate | Claimed waiver by defendants’ litigation conduct | No waiver, moved promptly | No waiver; right to arbitrate preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (deciding challenges to the delegation provision must be specific; general unconscionability claims go to the arbitrator)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (establishing federal policy favoring arbitration and doubts resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (intentions of the parties in the contract control the scope of arbitration)
- Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 449 F. Supp. 3d 216 (prompt invocation of arbitration right preserves it; no waiver where arbitration sought early)