Pimsner v. Greystar Property Management
2:24-cv-02359
D. Ariz.Nov 14, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Jeffery Pimsner sued Greystar Management Services, LLC, his former employer, for harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and possibly Title VII.
- The employment contract, which Pimsner signed at hiring, included a broad, mutual agreement to arbitrate any employment-related disputes, governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- Pimsner filed suit in state court; Greystar removed the case to federal court. Both original and amended complaints centered on the same claims.
- Greystar moved to dismiss the case and compel arbitration pursuant to the agreement. Pimsner opposed, claiming the agreement was unenforceable for various reasons.
- The only disputed issue was the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, not whether its scope covered Pimsner's claims.
- The court considered the enforceability of the arbitration agreement under federal and Arizona law, ultimately granting Greystar’s request to dismiss and compel arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAA governs the arbitration agreement | Arizona law excludes employment arbitration; FAA does not apply | The FAA applies because the agreement states it is governed by FAA | FAA governs due to explicit contract provision |
| Procedural unconscionability | Adhesion contract, no negotiation | Clear, conspicuous, plaintiff had opportunity to review | Not procedurally unconscionable |
| Substantive unconscionability | Disproportionate burdens on employee | Equitable, shared burdens, no unfair terms | Not substantively unconscionable |
| Public policy exception | Claims should be adjudicated in court due to public interest | Arbitration favored by current precedent | Arbitration enforceable, public policy not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (Arbitration clauses are broadly interpreted; doubts resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Cir. City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (Enforcement of arbitration agreements favored, including in employment context)
- Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51 (Defines substantive unconscionability under Arizona law)