Raglani v. Ripken Professional Baseball
939 F. Supp. 2d 517
D. Maryland2013Background
- Raglani began working for Ripken Professional Baseball (RPB) in July 2006 as an Account Representative.
- She was promoted to Assistant General Manager of Ticket Sales in October 2010.
- In 2011, Raglani engaged in a romantic relationship with a subordinate, amidst allegedly lax enforcement of a policy against such conduct.
- RPB terminated Raglani on July 6, 2011, citing the relationship and alleged instruction to others to lie about it.
- Raglani alleges she was treated differently from similarly situated male coworkers who engaged in similar subordinates behavior.
- She filed an EEOC charge and later filed this suit alleging Title VII gender discrimination, negligence, wrongful discharge, and breach of contract; she signed a Problem Support Policy (PSP) at hire, which includes an arbitration provision and internal problem-resolution steps, but the PSP is asymmetrical and binds employees only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PSP arbitration provision is enforceable under Maryland law | Raglani argues lack of mutuality and consideration render the provision invalid | RPB argues the provision is a valid arbitration clause under the FAA | Unenforceable due to lack of mutuality and consideration |
| If enforceable, whether the PSP provides a neutral forum for arbitration | PSP grants employer control over arbitrator lists and lacks neutral mechanisms | RPB contends the PSP promises impartial external resolution | Unenforceable because of employer-controlled arbitrator selection and insufficient neutrality |
| Whether the lack of a neutral forum justifies not enforcing arbitration at all | Unfair forum denial prevents Raglani from vindicating claims | FAA policy favors arbitration if the agreement is valid | Arbitration not enforced; the agreement invalid for lack of neutral forum and consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Noohi v. Toll Bros., Inc., 708 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2013) (arbitration agreement must have mutuality of obligation and adequate consideration)
- Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933 (4th Cir. 1999) (neutral forum and impartial arbitrator concerns; one-sided arbitration provisions void)
- Murray v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 289 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2002) (unconscionability and forum access considerations in arbitration agreements)
- Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (federal policy favoring arbitration; state-law defenses cannot undermine arbitration structure)
- Cheek v. UnitedHealthcare of Mid-Atlantic, Inc., 378 Md. 139, 835 A.2d 656 (Md. 2003) (arbitration provision requires consideration independent of the underlying contract)
- Hill v. PeopleSoft USA Inc., 412 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005) (mutuality of consideration in employment arbitration agreements)