Keith Russell v. Citigroup, Inc.
748 F.3d 677
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Keith Russell worked at Citicorp’s Florence, Kentucky call center from 2004 to 2009 and signed an arbitration agreement covering individual disputes but excluding class actions.
- In January 2012, Russell filed a class action alleging Citicorp failed to pay for time spent logging in/out of computers, and arbitration was not sought because the agreement did not cover class claims.
- In late 2012, Russell was rehired at the same call center; Citicorp updated its arbitration contract to cover class claims and he signed the new agreement in early 2013.
- Russell did not consult counsel before signing the new contract; Citicorp’s outside counsel did not know Russell had applied to rejoin the company.
- About a month after starting the new job, Citicorp moved to compel arbitration based on the new contract; the district court held the new agreement did not cover pre-signing lawsuits.
- Citicorp appealed under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a); the court reviews whether the contract’s scope includes the pending class action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the arbitration clause | Clause covers all disputes arising under Citi relations. | Clause extends to all employment disputes, including class actions, between Russell and Citi and affiliates. | Limited to future disputes; does not reach pending/class claims. |
| Effect of tense and context on scope | Arbitration clause intended to cover past and present disputes with Citi. | Text shows only future-arising disputes; past disputes not included. | Contract governs only future lawsuits. |
| Presumption of arbitrability under FAA | Presumption favors arbitration and should extend scope. | Presumption yields to contract’s intended scope; context shows limitation. | Presumption does not override intent; no arbitration for pending class action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (presumption of arbitrability)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (arbitration agreement requires party intent)
- Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010) (textual interpretation of contract language; tense usage)
- Watson Wyatt & Co. v. SBC Holdings, Inc., 513 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2008) (forceful evidence of exclusion may limit arbitrability)
- In re AmTrust Fin. Corp., 694 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2012) (common expectations inform contract interpretation)
- Grain v. Trinity Health, Mercy Health Servs., 551 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008) (arbitration appeal context)
- Frear v. P.T.A. Indus., Inc., 103 S.W.3d 99 (Ky. 2003) (contract interpretation considering context)
- United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610 (1818) (use of context to interpret broad terms)