924 F. Supp. 2d 559
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Ryan, a former JPMorgan Chase Assistant Branch Manager, sues in a putative FLSA collective action alleging unpaid overtime.
- Defendants move to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration of Ryan’s claim on an individual basis under the FAA.
- In March 2010, Ryan signed a Binding Arbitration Affirmation confirming the Binding Arbitration Agreement (BAA) as a condition of employment.
- The BAA provides: (i) arbitration for all Covered Claims including FLSA claims; (ii) a Class Action/Collective Action Waiver requiring individual arbitration; and (iii) allocation of arbitration costs and fees to JPMorgan Chase with attorney’s fees per law.
- The Court, applying a summary-judgment-like standard, determines the BAA is valid and that the FLSA claim is arbitrable, and therefore grants dismissal and orders arbitration; the NLRA/NLA do not preclude this outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties agreed to arbitrate Ryan’s FLSA claim. | Ryan's collective action should be permitted under FLSA. | The BAA obligates individual arbitration for all Covered Claims, including FLSA. | Yes; arbitration agreement covers the claim. |
| Whether the BAA’s collective action waiver is enforceable. | Waiver prevents vindication of statutory rights. | Waiver is permissible if the plaintiff can vindicate rights individually. | Enforceable; not per se unenforceable under FAA. |
| Whether NLRA/NLA preclude the arbitration of an FLSA claim. | NLRA/NLA protect collective action rights. | NLRA/NLA do not preclude individual arbitration of FLSA claims. | Preclusion denied; NLA/NLRA do not preclude individual arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (Supreme Court 2011) (class-action waiver permissible to preserve arbitration)
- Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., Ltd., 815 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1987) (multifactor check for arbitrability)
- Am. Express Merch. Litig. (Amex III), 667 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2012) (class-action waiver unenforceable if it precludes statutory rights)
- Am. Express Merch. Litig. (Amex I), 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009) (case-by-case evaluation of waivers for fairness and costs)
- Am. Express Merch. Litig. (Amex II), 634 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2011) (reaffirms Amex I/III line post-Stolt-Nielsen)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court 2000) (arbitration costs are considered in enforceability)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (Supreme Court 1985) (arbitrability of statutory claims under FAA)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1983) (federal policy favoring arbitration)