REAVES v. CONDUENT, INC.
1:24-cv-00837
M.D.N.C.Jun 6, 2025Background
- Jacquelyn Reaves, proceeding pro se, sued her former employer Conduent (technically employed by Conduent Human Resource Services, LLC) and several Conduent employees for alleged employment discrimination under state and federal law.
- Defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the court proceedings, citing Conduent’s Dispute Resolution Plan (DRP), which contains a mandatory arbitration clause and a delegation provision.
- Reaves electronically signed multiple agreements acknowledging receipt of and agreeing to be bound by the DRP as part of her application and onboarding.
- The DRP was made repeatedly available to her, including through Conduent’s intranet during her employment.
- Plaintiff claimed she didn’t understand what “arbitration” meant and argued she did not knowingly agree to arbitrate, nor did she receive a copy of the DRP.
- The Court was asked to decide whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, and, if so, if a clear “delegation clause” requires arbitrability determinations to be made by an arbitrator rather than the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of Arbitration Agreement | No meeting of minds; lacked understanding; never received full DRP | Plaintiff had notice, access, and repeatedly agreed in writing | Valid contract formed |
| Validity/Enforceability of DRP | DRP unconscionable (citing California law); not entered knowingly | DRP is valid and enforceable under NC law; mutual promises sufficed | DRP valid, enforceable |
| Delegation Clause (Who Decides Arbitrability) | Did not specifically challenge delegation provision | DRP contains clear, unmistakable delegation clause | Arbitrator decides arbitrability |
| Scope of Relief – Injunctive Relief in Court | DRP should not bar her request for permanent injunction in court | DRP allows only temporary injunctive relief in court; all other relief to arbitrator | All claims, incl. injunctive relief, to arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (Court cannot rule on merits of dispute when determining arbitrability)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (Describes FAA's two devices for enforcing arbitration agreements)
- First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (Court must decide whether parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability)
- Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (Delegation clauses are enforceable if not specifically challenged)
- Hightower v. GMRI, Inc., 272 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2001) (Continued employment indicates acceptance of arbitration agreement)
- Johnson v. Circuit City Stores, 148 F.3d 373 (4th Cir. 1998) (Mutual promises sufficient consideration for arbitration agreement)